mhw 


f ' 


HISTORY 


r 


ECCLESIASTICAL  RELATIONS 


CHURCHES  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAL  ORDER, 


china. 


REV.  J.  V.  N.  T ATM  AGE, 


MISSIONARY  OF  THE  PROT.  REF.  DUTCH  CHURCH. 


fjUto  ^crk: 

WYNKOOP,  HALLENBECK  & THOMAS,  PRINTERS,  113  FULTON  ST. 

1863  . 


11 


I ; ' 


f j 


■/u* 1 / f ;i  17  I j I > > { 


i M 


ri  i u 1 1 


' I 


HISTORY 


AND 

ECCLESIASTICAL  RELATIONS 


OF  TIIE 


CHURCHES  OF  THE  PRESBYTEHI AX  ORDER, 

AT 

AMOY,  CHINA. 


REY.  J.  Y.  N.  TALIAGE, 

MISSIONARY  OF  THE  TROT.  REF.  DUTCH  CHURCH. 


WYNKOOP,  HALLENBECK  & THOMAS,  PRINTERS,  113  FULTON  ST. 


1863. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/historyecclesiasOOtalm 


PREFACE. 


To  the  Ministers , Elders , and  Members  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 

Church : 

It  is  proper  that  I give  some  reasons  for  the  publication 
of  this  paper.  The  importance  of  the  subject  of  the  eccle- 
siastical organization  of  the  churches  gathered  in  heathen 
lands,  I conceive  to  be  a sufficient  reason.  Those  who  may 
differ  in  regard  to  the  views  set  forth  in  this  paper,  will  not 
dispute  the  importance  of  the  subject.  Instead  of  the  ques- 
tions involved  having  been  settled  by  any  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Denominations  of  this  country  (the  Dutch  Church 
included  among  them),  by  experiments  in  India  or  any  other 
heathen  land,  very  few  of  the  churches  gathered  from  the 
heathen,  by  these  various  Denominations,  have  yet  arrived  at 
a stage  of  development  sufficient  for  practical  application  of 
the  experiment.  (See  foot-note,  page  160.)  There  are,  how- 
ever, a few  mission  churches,  where  the  subject  is  now  be- 
coming one  of  vast  practical  importance.  The  Church 
at  Amoy  stands  out  prominent  among  these.  With  the 
continuance  of  the  divine  blessing  there  will  soon  be  many 
such.  Hence  the  importance  of  the  discussion,  and  its  im- 
portance now. 

Many  experiments  have  been  made  in  reference  to  the 
best  way  of  conducting  the  work  of  missions.  The  Church 
has  improved  by  them,  and  has  been  compelled  to  unlearn 
♦ many  things.  We  are  continually  returning  towards  the 
simple  plan  laid  down  in  God’s  Word.  As  the  Church  by 
experiment  and  by  discussion  has  thus  been  led  to  retrace 
some  of  her  steps  in  the  preliminary  work  of  missions, 
should  she  not  be  ready  to  take  advantage  of  experiment  and 
discussion,  in  reference  to  the  ecclesiastical  organization  of 
the  mission  churches,  and  stand  ready  to  retrace  some  of  her 


IV. 


PREFACE. 


steps  in  this  second  stage  of  the  work  of  missions,  if  need  be, 
in  order  to  conform  more  fully  to  the  doctrines  of  our 
Presbyterial  church  polity  ? I would  use  the  phrase  Scrip- 
tural church  polity,  but  I suppose  it  is  the  universal  belief  of 
our  Church,  that  Presbyterial  polity  is  scriptural.  At  any 
rate,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Churcli  to  examine  the  subject 
carefully.  She  has  nothing  to  fear  from  such  examination. 
She  should  fear  to  neglect  it. 

In  addition  to  the  importance  of  the  subject  in  itself 
considered,  I have  other  reasons  for  discussing  it  at  the 
present  time.  There  are  mistaken  impressions  abroad  in  the 
Church,  concerning  the  views  and  course  of  your  missionaries 
at  Amoy,  which  must  be  injurious  to  the  cause  of  missions 
in  our  Church.  It  would  seem  to  be  a plain  duty  to  correct 
these  impressions.  I will  quote  an  extract  from  a letter,  I 
recently  received,  from  an  honored  missionary  of  a sister 
Church  : 

“ I have  heard  much,  and  seen  some  notices  in  the  papers 
“ of  the  battle  you  fought  on  the  floor  of  Synod,  and  would 
“ like  to  hear  your  side  of  the  subject  from  your  own  mouth, 
“ as  the  question  has  also  been  a practical  one  with  us.  # * 

“ * * * We  have  our  own  Presbytery,  and  manage  our 

“ own  business,  and  insist  on  not  having  too  much  of  what 
“they  call  the  new  science  of  Missionary  management;  a 
“science  which,  I believe,  has  been  cultivated  far  too  assidu- 
“ ously.  It  was  this,  more  than  anything  else,  which  kept 
“ me  from  going  out  under  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  and  to  Amoy. 
“ * * * * # I }iearj  however,  from  some,  that  what  you 

“ and  the  brethren  there  had  formed,  wTas  some  sort  of  loose 
“Congregational  association.  If  so,  I must  judge  against 
“ you,  for  I believe  in  the  jure  divino  of  Presbytery  (or 
“ Qlassis  if  you  choose  so  to  call  it),  and  I think  you  and 
“tthey  should  have  been  allowed  to  form  a Presbytery  there, 
“ and  manage  all  your  own  affairs,  and  that  your  Boards  at 
“ home  should  be  content  to  consider  themselves  a committee 
“ to  raise  and  send  on  the  funds.  But  it  is  hard  for  the  D. 
“ D’s  and  big  folk  at  home  to  come  to  that.  They  think 
“ they  must  manage  everything,  or  all  will  go  wrong  ; while 
“ how  little  it  is  that  they  can  be  brought  to  know  or  realize 
“ of  the  real  nature  of  the  work  abroad  ; and  then  it  is  the 


PREFACE. 


V. 


“ old  battle  of  patronage  over  again.  Those  who  give  the 
“ money  must  govern , and  those  who  receive  it  must  give  up 
“ their  liberty,  and  be  no  longer  Christ’s  freemen.” 

This  is  only  a specimen,  one  of  many,  of  the  mistaken 
impressions  abroad  in  the  Church  concerning  the  views  and 
doings  of  your  Missionaries.  May  we  not,  must  we  not,  cor- 
rect "them?  The  letter  also  illustrates  the  evils  resulting 
from  allowing  mistaken  impressions  to  remain  in  the  Church 
uncorrected.  There  has  long  been  an  impression  in  our 
Church  that  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  interfered  with  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal affairs  of  our  missions.  We  have  been  informed  that 
several  of  our  young  men,  before  our  Church  separated  from 
that  Board,  were  deterred  thereby  from  devoting  themselves 
to  the  foreign  Missionary  work.  The  writer  of  the  above 
letter,  probably  having  more  of  the  Missionary  spirit,  was 
not  willing,  on  that  account,  to  give  up  the  work,  but  was 
led  to  offer  himself  to  the  Board  of  a sister  Church.  The 
Mission  at  Amoy,  and  our  Church,  have  thus  been  deprived 
of  the  benefit  of  his  labors  by  means  of  an  erroneous  im- 
pression. When  we  learned  the  fact  of  such  an  impression 
existing  in  this  country,  we  endeavored  to  correct  it.  In  our 
letter  of  1S56,  to  General  Synod,  we  called  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  subject.  Here  is  a part  of  one  sentence  : “ It 

“ seems  to  us  a duty,  and  we  take  this  opportunity  to  bear 
“testimony,  that  neither  Dr.  Anderson,  nor  the  Prudential 
“ Committee  have  ever,  in  any  communication  which  we 
“ have  received  from  them,  in  any  way,  either  by  dictation, 
“ or  by  the  expression  of  opinions,  interfered  in  the  least  with 
“ our  ecclesiastical  relations.”  We  failed  to  get  that  letter 
published,  and  I find  the  erroneous  impression  still  prevalent, 
working  its  mischief  in  the  churches. 

But  to  return  to  the  subject  of  the  mistaken  impressions 
concerning  the  views  of  your  Missionaries  at  Amoy. 
These  impressions  would  have  been  partly  corrected  in  the 
Church,  if  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  Synod,  in  “ The 
Christian  Intelligencer,”  had  been  more  correct  on  this  sub- 
ject. That  paper  states,  that,  on  Friday  evening,  “ Rev.  Mr. 
Talmage  then  took  the  floor,  and  addressed  the  Synod  for 
nearly  two  hours,”  but  does  not  give  a single  word  or  idea 
uttered  by  him.  It  is  careful  to  report  the  only  unkind  words 


VI. 


PREFACE. 


against  the  Missionaries  uttered  during  that  whole  discussion, 
which,  with  this  single  exception,  was  conducted  in  a spirit 
of  the  utmost  Christian  kindness ; hut  does  not  give  a word 
of  the  remarks  made  on  the  Friday  evening  previous,  on  that 
very  subject,  in  justification  of  their  course. 

It  seems  to  be  a duty,  though  painful,  to  speak  particu- 
larly on  this  subject.  Look  at  the  following  language  : “ I 
“ know  that  we  are  told  that  the  hybrid  organization  [/.  c.  the 
“ Classis,  a court  of  the  Church  of  Christ , at  Amoy]  which  now 
“ exists  is  every  way  sufficient  and  satisfactory  ; that  it  is  the 
“ fruit  of  Christian  love,  and  that  to  disturb  it  would  be  rend- 
“ ing  the  body  of  Christ.  Here  one  might  ask,  how  it  came 
“ to  exist  at  all,  seeing  that  this  Synod  spoke  so  plainly,  and 
“ unambiguously,  in  18-57  ; and  I,  for  one,  cordially  concur  in 
“ the  remark  of  the  elder , Schicffclin,  that  the  brethren  there  1 de- 
“ serve  censure .’  We  do  not  censure  them,  nor  do  we  propose 
“ to  do  so  ; but  that  they  deserve  it  is  undeniable.  But  the  point  is, 
“ how  can  our  (disapproval  of  the  mongrel  Classis  mar  the 
“ peace  of  the  Amoy  brethren  ?”  This  language  was  used 
by  the  President  of  Synod,  after  asking  whether  the  Synod 
was  ready  for  the  question,  “ the  question  being  about  to  be 
put,”  when  an  attempt  to  answer  it  seemed  altogether  out 
of  place.  In  all  the  circumstances  it  seemed  almost  like  the 
charge  of  a judge  to  a jury,  I do  not  say  that  there  is  any 
improper  spirit  manifested,  or  opprobrious  expressions  em- 
ployed in  this  language,  or  that  the  President  did  wrong  in 
waiting  until  the  discussion  was  over  before  he  uttered  it,  or 
that  the  missionaries  are  not  deserving  of  such  severe  cen- 
sure— of  all  these  things  let  the  Church  judge — but  I do  say 
that  the  spreading  of  such  language  and  such  charges  broad- 
cast, before  the  Church  and  before  the  world,  demands  that 
the  missionaries  be  heard  in  self-defense,  or,  which  is  all  they 
ask,  that  they  be  allowed  to  state  the  facts  and  views  which 
guided  them  in  their  action. 

Doubtless  it  was  an  oversight  that  such  a one-sided  report  on 
this  subject  appeared  in  The  Christian  Intelligencer.  At  least 
it  was  not  at  all  designed  that  injustice  be  done  to  the  Mis- 
sionaries, but,  unless  they  be  allowed  to  speak  for  themselves, 
is  not  injustice  done  them  ? It  seemed  to  me  that  a very 
mistaken  impression  concerning  the  views  expressed  by  me, 


PREFACE. 


Vll. 


near  the  close  of  the  session  of  Synod,  was  also  conveyed  by 
the  Report.  This  I attempted  to  correct  by  a note  to  the 
editor,  but  even  the  right  of  correcting  my  own  sentiments 
and  language  was  refused,  my  note  garbled,  and,  as  I thought, 
my  views  again  misrepresented.  More  than  this,  the  implied 
charge  is  published  to  the  world  that  I am  seeking  to  excite 
“ dissension  among  the  churches,”  and  “ opposition  to  the 
constituted  authority  of  Synod.”*  It  would  therefore  be 
great  dereliction  of  duty  to  return  to  my  field  of  labor,  allow- 
ing my  own  views,  and  the  views  of  my  co-laborers,  to  be 
thus  mistaken  in  the  Church,  and  such  serious  charges  against 
our  course  unanswered.  I am  not  aware  that  any  censorship 
of  the  press  has  been  authorized  by  General  Synod.  Surely 
if  others  are  allowed  to  be  heard  for  us  we  should  be  allowed 
the  right  to  be  heard  for  ourselves.  We  were  unable  by 
writing  from  Amoy  to  get  our  views  before  the  Church.  I 
must,  therefore,  while  in  this  land,  endeavor  to  make  them 
known. 

I have  been  advised  by  some  to  delay  the  publication  of 
this  paper  a few  months,  until  we  learn  the  effect  of  the  deci- 
sion of  the  last  Synod  on  the  Mission  at  Amoy,  and  see  what 
course  the  Church  there  may  feel  compelled  to  adopt.  I do 
not  see  the  force  of  such  advice.  Whatever  may  be  the 
course  of  the  Church  there,  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  question 
will  be  unchanged  thereby.  Besides  this,  I cannot  afford 
such  delay.  I have  been  looking  forward  to  as  speedy  re- 
turn as  possible  to  that  field  of  labor.  Would  it  be  right  to 
leave  the  whole  subject  to  the  eve  of  my  departure,  and  thus 
shut  myself  off  from  the  possibility  of  defending  or  further 
explaining  my  views,  if  such  defense  or  explanation  be  called 
for '? 

I have  been  asked,  Why  not  bring  this  subject  before  the 
Church  through  the  columns  of  the  Christian  Intelligencer  ? 
This  question,  after  what  has  been  said  above,  need  not  now 
be  answered.  Doubtless  the  editor  is  responsible  for  what 
appears  in  his  columns.  The  only  resource  left  the  Mission 
seems  to  be  the  one  I have  chosen. 

I regret  the  necessity  of  discussing  the  subject,  since  the 


° If  this  language  seem  too  strong  or  uncalled  for,  see  Appendix  B,  at  the 
end. 


Till. 


PREFACE. 


action  of  the  last  Synod,  but  we  could  not  discuss  it  pre- 
viously without  running  counter  to  the  same  advice  which 
would  now  restrain  us.  I do  not  at  all  suppose,  however, 
that  by  the  course  I am  taking  I shall  become  guilty  of  dis- 
obedience “ to  the  authority  of  Synod.”  Neither  should  it 
be  the  occasion  of  creating  “ dissensions  in  the  churches.” 
The  discussion  of  any  important  subject  in  a proper  spirit  is 
neither  opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  nor 
to  the  doctrines  of  the  Dutch  Church,  and  I am  whiling  to 
leave  it  to  those  who  may  read  the  following  pages  to  decide 
whether  there  be  in  them  any  manifestation  of  an  improper 
spirit.  We,  and  those  who  differ  from  us,  are  all  seeking  the 
same  end,  i.  e.  the  glory  of  God  through  the  advancement  of 
his  cause.  All  that  I ask  for  myself  and  co-laborers  is  an 
impartial  hearing. 

Perhaps,  in  order  to  guard  against  any  mistaken  impres- 
sion, I ought  to  add  that  the  relations  between  the  Missiona- 
ries and  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  our  Church,  have 
always  been  of  the  most  pleasant  character.  Whatever  have 
been  their  differences  of  opinion  on  this  most  important  sub- 
ject, or  on  any  other  subject,  they  have  not  caused,  so  far  as 
I am  aware,  the  least  interruption  of  that  warm  Christian 
friendship  which  has  alwTays  existed,  or  been  the  occasion  of 
one  unkind  utterance  in  all  their  mutual  correspondence. 
Why  not  so  ? Cannot  Christians  reason  with  each  other,  even 
on  subjects  of  the  highest  moment,  in  such  a spirit  as  not 
only  to  avoid  animosities,  but  even  to  increase  personal  friend- 
ship ? If  this  paper  should  prove  the  occasion  of  discussion  in 
our  Church,  let  me  express  the  hope  that  such  discussion  will 
be  carried  on  in  such  a spirit. 

J.  Y.  N.  TALMAGE. 

Bound  Brook,  N.  J.,  October,  1SG-3. 


HISTORY 


ECCLESIASTICAL  RELATIONS 

0 F 

THE  CHURCHES  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAL  ORDER, 

AT 

AMOY,  CHINA. 


The  first  Protestant  Missionaries  at  Amoy  arrived  there  in 
the  year  1S42.  They  were  Dr.  Abeel  of  the  American 
Reformed  Dutch  Church,  and  Bishop  Boone  of  the  American 
Episcopal  Church.  After  these  there  arrived  Missionaries  of 
the  London  Missionary  Society,  of  the  American  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  and  others 
of  the  American  Reformed  Dutch  Church. 

Bishop  Boone  soon  left  Amoy,  and  no  others  of  his  Church 
have  since  then  been  stationed  there.  The  American  Presbyte- 
rian Mission  was  removed  to  other  parts  of  China.  At  the  pre- 
sent time  there  are  three  Missions  at  Amoy,  viz. : the  Missions 
of  the  American  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  of  the  London  Mis- 
sionary Society,  and  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  Missionaries  of  the  London  Missionary  Society  are 
Independents  or  Co ngregationali sts,  and  have  organized  their 
churches  after  the  Congregational  order.  Thus  their  churches 
form  a distinct  Denomination,  and  nothing  further  need  be 
said  of  them  in  this  paper. 

Tire  first  Missionary  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church  at 


10 


Amoy  was  Dr.  Jas.  Young.  He  arrived  in  May,  18-50.  At 
that  time  there  were  two  Missionaries  connected  with  our 
(R.  D.  C.)  Mission,  viz. : Rev.  E.  Doty,  on  the  ground,  and 
Rev.  J.  V.  N.  Talmage,  absent  on  a visit  to  the  United  States. 
There  were  then  under  our  care  six  native  church  members. 
Five  of  them  had  been  baptized  by  our  Missionaries  at  Amoy. 
The  other  had  been  baptized  in  Siam,  by  a Congregationalist 
or  Presbyterian  Minister  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M. 

Dr.  Young,  being  a physician,  and  not  an  ordained  Minis- 
ter, instead  of  commencing  an  independent  work,  inasmuch 
as  our  doctrines  and  order  of  church  government  did  not 
essentially  differ  from  those  of  his  own  Church,  very  naturally 
became  more  especially  associated  with  us  in  our  work.  A 
school  under  the  care  of  our  Mission,  of  which  Mr.  Doty  did 
not  feel  able  to  continue  the  charge,  was  passed  over  to  his 
care.  He  also  rendered  medical  assistance  to  the  Mission- 
aries, and  to  the  Chinese,  both  in  Amoy,  and  by  occasional 
tours  in  the  country.  In  his  labors  he  was  usually  assisted 
by  native  Christians  under  our  care. 

The  first  ordained  Missionary  of  the  English  Presbyterian 
Church,  at  Amoy,  was  Rev.  William  C.  Burns.  He  joined 
Dr.  Young  in  July,  1851.  While  he  rendered  considerable 
assistance  to  the  brethren  of  the  London  Missionary  Society, 
being  ready  to  preach  the  gospel  at  every  opportunity, 
providentially  he  became  especially  associated  with  us,  and 
with  the  native  Christians  under  our  care.  A remarkable 
outpouring  of  the  Spirit  of  God  had  accompanied  the  labors 
of  Rev.  Mr.  Burns,  in  his  native  land.  So  the  remarkable 
outpouring  of  that  same  Spirit  in  Amoy,  and  vicinity,  occur- 
red sometime  after  his  arrival,  and  much  of  this  good  work 
was  manifestly  connected  with  his  labors.  The  permanent 
work  in  the  country  around  Amoy  commenced  through 
his  instrumentality,  in  connection  with  native  members  of 


11 


the  church  under  our  care.  We  desired  him  to  take  the 
charge  of  that  work,  and  gather  a church  at  Peh-chui-ia, 
under  the  care  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church.  But,  at 
his  urgent  request,  we  took  the  pastoral  oversight  of  the 
work  in  that  region,  administering  the  sacraments  to  the 
native  converts. 

Rev.  James  Johnstone,  of  the  same  Mission,  arrived  in 
December,  18-53.  He  undertook  the  care  of  the  church 
being  gathered  at  Peh-chui-ia,  assuming,  in  behalf  of  the 
English  Presbyterian  Church,  all  the  expenses  thereof,  we 
continuing  the  pastoral  oversight  until  such  time  as  his 
knowledge  of  the  language  should  be  sufficient  to  enable 
him  to  relieve  us. 

In  consequence  of  the  ill-health  of  Dr.  Young,  he  and  Mr. 
Burns  left  Amoy,  in  August,  1S-54.  Mr.  Johnstone,  in  con- 
sequence of  ill-heath,  left  in  May,  1855,  before  he  was  able 
to  relieve  us  fully  from  the  pastoral  care  of  the  church  at 
Peh-chui-ia. 

Rev.  Carstairs  Douglas,  of  the  same  Mission,  arrived  at 
Amoy  in  July,  1855,  and  immediately  entered  on  the  work 
of  Mr.  Johnstone,  we  continuing  the  pastoral  oversight  of 
the  church  at  Peh-chui-ia,  until  his  knowledge  of  the  lan- 
guage enabled  him  to  assume  it. 

Before  the  brethren  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church 
were  able  to  assume  pastoral  responsibility,  the  work  spread 
from  Peh-chui-ia  to  Chioli-be.  It  was  thought  best  that  we 
take  the  charge  of  that  station. 

After  the  departure  of  Dr.  Young,  all  the  Missionaries  of 
the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  for  several  years,  were 
unmarried  men.  Therefore,  they  resolved  to  devote  them- 
selves more  especially  to  work  in  the  country,  leaving  to  our 
especial  care  the  church  in  the  city  of  Amoy,  and  the  one 
out-station  at  Chioli-be.  Amoy  was  still  necessarily  their 


12 


place  of  residence.  All  their  work  at  Amoy  was  in  con- 
nection with  the  church  under  our  care.  In  the  country  we 
assisted  them  as  we  had  opportunity,  and  as  occasion  de- 
manded. They  did  the  same  for  us.  In  fact,  we  and  they 
have  worked  together  as  one  Church,  and  almost  as  one 
Mission,  with  the  exception  of  keeping  pecuniary  matters 
distinct. 

More  recently  the  English  Presbyterian  Mission  was  re 
infoi'ced  by  one  member  with  a family,  and  it  seemed  a 
proper  time  for  them  to  commence  more  direct  work  at 
Amoy.  A very  populous  suburb  (E-mng-kang)  was  selected 
as  a suitable  and  promising  station.  They  assumed  the 
immediate  care,  and  all  the  expense  of  it,  employing,  as  at 
all  the  other  stations,  indiscriminately,  members  of  their  own 
or  of  our  churches  as  helpers. 

We  are  not  afraid  that  our  Church  will  ever  blame  us  for 
working  thus  harmoniously,  and  unitedly,  with  our  English 
Presbyterian  brethren,  and  we  feel  confident  that  none  of 
her  Missionaries  wTould  consent  to  work  on  any  other  princi- 
ples. If  there  be  any  who,  under  similar  circumstances, 
would  refuse  thus  to  work,  this  would  be  sufficient  evidence 
that  they  had  mistaken  their  calling.  If  any  blame  is  to  be 
attached  to  the  course  the  Missionaries  have  pursued,  it  is 
not  that  they  have  worked  thus  in  harmony  and  unison  with 
the  English  Presybterian  brethren,  but  that  they  have  failed 
to  keep  the  churches  under  their  care  ecclesiastically 
distinct.  Some  do  feel  inclined  to  censure  us  for  this.  It 
must  be,  however,  because  of  some  great  misapprehension 
on  their  part.  The  Synod  has  distinctly  uttered  a contraiy 
sentiment,  i.  e.  that  the  course  of  the  Missionaries  is  not 
censurable.  We  no  not  believe  that  our  Church,  when  she 
understands  the  true  state  of  the  case,  will  ever  censure  us 
on  this  account.  It  would  not  be  according  to  the  spirit  of 


13 


her  Master.  lie  prayed  that  His  people  might  be  one,  but 
lie  never  prayed  for  their  separation  from  each  other. 
When  separation  is  necessary,  it  is  a necessary  evil.  But 
more  of  this  hereafter.  Our  Church  might  well  have 
censured  us,  if  we  had  adopted  lower  principles  as  her 
representatives  in  building  up  the  Church  of  Christ  in 
China. 

The  first  organization  of  a church  at  Amoy  under  our  care, 
by  the  ordination  of  a Consistory,  took  place  in  1856.  The 
Missionaries  of  our  Board  then  on  the  ground  were  Doty  and 
Talmage.  Mr.  Douglas  was  the  only  Missionary  of  the  Eng- 
lish Presbyterian  Church.  (Mr.  Joralmon,  of  our  Church, 
arrived  between  the  time  of  the  election  and  the  ordination 
of  office-bearers.)  When  the  time  came  for  the  organization 
of  the  Church,  we  felt  a solemn  responsibility  resting  on  us. 
We  supposed  it  to  be  our  duty  to  organize  the  Church  in 
China  with  reference  simply  to  its.  own  welfare,  and  efficiency 
in  the  work  of  evangelizing  the  heathen  around.  Believing 
(after  due  deliberation)  that  the  order  of  our  own  Church  in 
America  would  best  secure  this  end,  of  course  we  adopted  it. 
We  did  not  suppose  that  we  were  sent  out  to  build  up  the 
American  Dutch  Church  in  China,  but  a Church  after  the 
same  order,  a purely  Chinese  Church.  IIow  much  the  growth 
and  efficiency  of  our  Church  in  this  country  has  been  pro- 
moted by  retaining  (rather  inserting)  the  term  “ Dutch  ” in 
her  name,  I will  not  now  attempt  to  discuss.  I suppose  the 
principal  argument  in  favor  thereof  is  found  in  the  fact  that 
our  Church,  in  the  first  instance,  was  a colony  from  Holland. 
The  Church  in  China  is  not  a colony  from  Holland,  or  Ame- 
rica. We  must  not,  therefore,  entail  on  her  the  double  evil 
of  both  the  terms  “ American  ” and  “ Dutch,"  or  the  single 
evil  of  either  of  these  terms.  Your  Missionaries  will  never 
consent  to  be  instrumental  in  causing  such  an  evil. 


14 


We  had  already  adopted  the  order  and  customs  of  our 
Church  at  home,  so  far  as  they  could  be  adopted  in  an  unor- 
ganized Church.  The  English  Presbyterian  brethren  had 
adopted  the  same.  They  found  that  there  were  no  differ- 
ences of  any  importance  between  us  and  them  ; the  churches 
being  gathered  under  our  care  and  under  theirs — growing 
out  of  each  other  and  being  essentially  one- — neither  we  nor 
they  could  see  any  sufficient  reason  for  organizing  two  dis- 
tinct denominations.  Especially  had  we  no  reason  for  such 
a course,  inasmuch  as  they  were  willing  even  to  conform  to 
our  peculiarities.  We  most  cordially  invited  Mr.  Douglas  to 
unite  with  us  in  the  organization  of  the  Church,  and  he  as 
cordially  accepted  of  the  invitation. 

In  reference  to  this  subject  Mr.  Douglas  wrote  to  their 
Corresponding  Secretary  as  follows : “ I need  hardly  say 
“ that  this  transaction  does  not  consist  in  members  of  one 
“ church  joining  another,  nor  in  two  churches  uniting,  but  it 
“ is  an  attempt  to  build  up  on  the  soil  of  China,  with  the 
“lively  stones  prepared  by  the  great  Master-builder,  an  eccle- 
“ siastical  body  holding  the  grand  doctrines  enunciated  at 
“ Westminster  and  Dort,  and  the  principles  of  Presbyterian 
“ polity  embraced  at  the  Reformation  by  the  purest  churches 
“ on  the  continent  and  in  Britain  ; it  will  also  he  a beautiful 
“ point  in  the  history  of  this  infant  Church  that  the  under, 
“builders  employed  in  shaping  and  arranging  the  stones, 
“ were  messengers  of  two  different  (though  not  differing,) 
“ churches  in  the  two  creat  nations  on  either  side  of  the 
“ Atlantic.” 

The  course  of  Mr.  Douglas  met  with  the  decided  ap- 
proval of  their  Secretary,  and,  as  he  had  reason  then  to  be- 
]ieve,  and  has  since  fully  learned,  with  the  approval  of 
their  Church. 

We  also  sent  a communication  to  our  Church,  address- 


15 


ing  it  to  General  Synod.  We  directed  it  to  the  care  of  one 
of  our  prominent  ministers,  for  a long  time  Secretary  of  the 
Board,  with  the  request  that  it  be  laid  before  the  Church, 
using  language  as  follows  : “ You  will,  doubtless,  receive 
“ this  paper  some  months  before  the  time  for  the  next  meet- 
ing  of  that  Body  [General  Synod],  We  would  suggest 
“ therefore,  that  the  paper  be  published,  that  the  members 
“ of  the  next  General  Synod  may  have  the  matter  before 
“ them,  and  be  the  better  prepared  to  make  such  disposition 
“ of  it  as  the  subject  may  demand.  We  feel  that  the  subject 
“ is  one  of  very  grave  importance,”  &c. 

Our  communication  was  laid  before  the  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions.  They  designated  it  a Memorial.,  and  decided  that 
they  had  no  right  to  publish  it.  Of  course  we  had  no  means 
of  publishing  it  ourselves.  It  was  laid  before  Synod  among 
other  papers  of  the  Board.  The  action  of  Synod  on  the 
subject  was  as  follows  (Minutes  of  Synod,  1S57,  pp.  225- 
227) : 

“ Among  the  papers  submitted  to  the  Synod  is  an 
“ elaborate  document  from  the  brethren  at  Amoy,  giving 
“ the  history  of  their  work  there,  of  its  gradual  progress,  of 
“ their  intimate  connection  with  Missionaries  from  other 
“ bodies,  of  the  formation  of  the  Church  now  existing  there, 
“ and  expressing  their  views  as  to  the  propriety  and  feasi- 
“ bility  of  forming  a Classis  at  that  station.  In  reply  to  so 
“ much  of  this  paper  as  respects  the  establishment  of  indi- 
“ vidual  churches,  we  must  say  that  while  we  appreciate 
“ the  peculiar  circumstances  of  our  brethren,  and  sympa- 
“ thize  with  their  perplexities,  yet  it  has  always  been  con- 
“ sidered  a matter  of  course  that  ministers,  receiving  their 
“ commission  through  our  Church,  and  sent  forth  under  the 
“ auspices  of  our  Board,  would,  when  they  formed  converts 
“ from  the  heathen  into  an  ecclesiastical  body,  mould  the 


16 


‘ organization  into  a form  approaching  as  nearly  as  pos- 
‘ sible  that  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Churches  in  our  own 
‘ land.  Seeing  that  the  converted  heathen,  when  associated 
‘ together,  must  have  some  form  of  government,  and  see- 
‘ ing  that  our  form  is,  in  our  view,  entirely  consistent  with, 
‘ if  not  required  by,  the  Scriptures,  we  expect  it  will  in  all 
‘ cases  be  adopted  by  our  Missionaries,  subject,  of  course. 
‘ to  such  modifications  as  the  peculiar  circumstances  may 
‘ for  the  time  render  necessary.  The  converts  at  Amoy, 
‘ as  at  Arcot  and  elsewhere,  are  to  be  regarded  as  ‘ an 
! ‘ integral  part  ’ of  our  Church,  and  as  such  are  entitled  to 
‘ all  the  rights  and  privileges  which  we  possess. 

■‘And  so  in  regard  to  the  formation  of  a Classis.  The 
‘ Church  at  home  will  undoubtedly  expect  the  brethren  to  as- 
‘ sociate  themselves  into  a regular  ecclesiastical  organization, 
‘just  as  soon  as  enough  materials  are  obtained  to  warrant 
‘ such  measure  with  the  hope  that  it  will  be  permanent. 
‘We  do  not  desire  churches  to  be  prematurely  formed  in 
‘ order  to  get  materials  for  a Classis,  nor  any  other  exercise 
‘ of  violent  haste.  But  we  equally  deprecate  unnecessary 
‘ delay,  believing  that  a regular  organization  will  be  alike 
‘ useful  to  our  brethren  themselves,  and  to  those  who,  under 
‘ them,  are  training  for  the  first  office-bearers  in  the  Chris- 
‘ tian  Church  on  heathen  ground.  As  to  the  difficulties  sug- 
gested in  the  memorial,  respecting  the  different  Particular 
‘ Synods  to  which  the  brethren  belong,  and  the  delays  of  car- 
‘ rying  out  a system  of  appellate  jurisdiction  covering 
‘America  and  China,  it  is  enough  to  say: — (1)  That  the 
‘ Presbyterian  Church  (0.  S.)  finds  no  insuperable  difficulties 
‘ in  carrying  into  operation  her  system  which  comprehends 
‘ Presbyteries  and  Synods  in  India  as  well  as  here  ; and  (2) 
‘ That  whatever  hindrances  may  at  any  time  arise,  this  body 
‘ will,  in  humble  reliance  upon  the  divine  aid  and  blessing, 


17 


“ undertake  to  meet  and  remove  them  as  far  as  possible. 
“ The  Church  at  home  assumes  the  entire  responsibility  of 
“ this  matter,  and  only  asks  the  brethren  abroad  to  carry  out 
“ the  policy  held  steadily  in  view  from  the  first  moment 
“ when  our  Missions  began. 

“ The  following  resolutions  are  recommended  : 

“ Resolved , 1.  That  the  Synod  view  with  great  pleasure 
“ the  formation  of  churches  among  the  converts  from  heath- 
enism, organized  according  to  the  established  usages  of  our 
“ branch  of  Zion. 

“ 2.  That  the  brethren  at  Amoy  be  directed  to  apply  to 
“ the  Particular  Synod  of  Albany  to  organize  them  into  a 
“ Classis  so  soon  as  they  shall  have  formed  churches  enough 
“ to  render  the  permanency  of  such  an  organization  reasona- 
“ bly  certain.” 

It  should  be  noticed  that,  in  the  foregoing  Report,  which 
was  adopted  by  Synod,  the  most  important  question — the 
vital  question — of  our  communication,  i.  e.  the  unity  of  the 
churches  under  the  care  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Mission- 
sionaries  and  of  us,  is  entirely  ignored  ; and  consequently, 
without  the  fact  being  stated,  we  were  directed  to  divide  those 
churches,  and  form  a part  of  them  into  a distinct  Denomina- 
tion. 

If  the  English  Presbyterian  Church  had  disapproved  of 
the  course  of  their  Missionaries  in  uniting  with  us  in  organiz- 
ing the  native  churches  with  our  peculiarities,  we  think  even 
that  would  have  been  strange.  It  would  have  appeared  to 
us  as  though  they  were  sacrificing  some  of  the  essentials  of 
Presbyterianism  for  the  sake  of  non-essentials,  for,  in  our 
organization,  they  found  all  that  they  hold  essential  in  doc- 
trine, order,  and  customs.  Suppose  the  position  of  the  two 
Missions  had  been  reversed,  they  had  been  first  on  the  ground, 


18 


and  when  we  arrived  we  found  the  Church  being  planted 
and  beginning  to  grow  up  after  their  order.  If  we  had  found 
in  the  Church  thus  growing  up  all  that  we  hold  essential  and 
important,  even  though  it  had  some  little  peculiarities  which 
were  theirs  and  not  ours,  ought  not  our  Church  to  have  per- 
mitted us  to  work  with  them,  as  they  have  been  permitted 
to  work  with  us  ? If  such  be  not  the  true  Christian  spirit, 
than  we  frankly  confess  that  we  know  not,  and  despair  of 
ever  learning  from  the  Word  of  God,  what  the  Christian  spirit 
is  on  such  a subject.  But  whether  such  disapproval  on  the 
part  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church  would  have  been 
strange  or  not,  it  would  not  have  been  so  strange  as  was  the 
decision  of  our  Church,  that  the  churches  organized  by  the 
English  Presbyterian  brethren  and  by  us — all  one  in  fact, 
growing  out  of  each  other,  and  all  adopting  our  order,  should 
not  be  organically  one.  Hence,  when  we  learned  from  our 
Board  the  decision  of  Synod,  we  felt  (correctly  or  incorrectly) 
that  there  must  be  some  misapprehension.  Surely  our 
Church  cannot  have  correct  views  of  our  position,  and  our 
course  of  proceeding.  Hence,  we  returned  answer  to  the 
Board  as  follows  : — (Letter  dated  December  23,  1S-57.) 

After  speaking  of  our  hearty  approval  of  the  course  of  our 
Church  in  separating  from  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  though  as  indi- 
viduals we  took  our  leave  of  that  Board  with  feelings  of  sad- 
ness, we  remarked : 

“ It  seems  proper  to  us  also,  on  the  present  occasion,  to 
“ allude  to  a subject  deeply  affecting  the  interests  of  the 
“ little  Church  which  God  has  graciously  gathered  by  our 
“ instrumentality  from  among  this  people.  This  Church  is 
“ now  small,  but  we  trust  that,  with  a continuance  of  the 
“ Divine  blessing,  the  ‘ little  one  ’ will  soon  ‘ become  a thou- 
“ ‘ sand,’  and  the  ‘ small  one  a strong  nation.’  ‘ The  Lord 
“ will  hasten  it  in  his  time.’  We  love  this  Church,  and 


19 


“ cannot  but  watch  over  her  interests  with  jealous  care. 
“ Besides  this,  the  Great  Shepherd  has  made  us  under-shep- 
“ herds,  and  commanded  us  to  watch  over  the  interests  ol 
“ this  flock.  We  gave  a brief  history  of  our  work,  and  an 
“ account  of  the  present  condition  and  peculiar  circum- 
“ stances  of  the  churches  here  under  our  care,  and  stated  at 
“ considerable  length  our  views  in  reference  to  the  future 

O 

“ ecclesiastical  relations  of  these  churches,  in  a paper  pre- 
“ pared  for  the  information  of  our  Church  at  home,  and 
“ addressed  to  General  Synod.  The  facts  thus  communicated 
“ ought  to  be  known  by  the  Church,  It  seems  to  us  very 
“ unfortunate  that  that  paper  was  not  published  according  to 
“ our  suggestion.  It  stated  facts  of  grave  importance.  If  we 
“ could  have  had  a representative  in  General  Synod,  the  pre- 
“ vious  publication  of  our  paper  might  have  been  unneces- 
“ sary.  But,  without  such  a representative,  it  was  hardly 
“possible  that  the  subject,  by  a single  reading  of  so  long  a 
“ document,  could  be  brought  before  the  minds  of  all  the 

“ members  of  S)rnod  with  sufficient  clearness 

“ Therefore  it  is  not  strange  that  some  of  the  important 
“ points  in  the  paper  should  have  been  entirely  overlooked, 
“ and  also  that  certain  grave  misconceptions  should  have  got 
“ abroad  in  the  Church  concerning  the  views  expressed 
“ by  us. 

“ So  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the  report  of  the  proceed- 
“ ings  of  Synod,  as  given  in  The  Christian  Intelligencer,  one 
“ of  the  most  important  considerations — perhaps  altogether 
“ the  most  important  mentioned — why  the  Church,  gathered 
“ by  us  here,  should  not  be  an  integral  part  of  the  Church  in 
“ America,  was  entirely  overlooked.  That  consideration 
“ relates  to  the  unity  of  Christ's  Church.  Our  Saviour  prays  : 
“ ‘ Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom 
“ ‘ thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one  as  we  are  one.’ 


20 


“ * That  they  all  may  he  one,  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and 
“ ‘ I in  thee,  that  they  also  may  he  one  in  us  : that  the  world 
“ ‘ may  believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.  And  the  glory  which 
“ ‘ thougavest  me,  I have  given  them,  that  they  may  he  one, 
“ ‘ even  as  we  are  one.’  Will  our  Church  require  of  us,  will 
“ she  desire  that  those  here  who  are  altogether  one- — one  in 
“ doctrine,  one  in  their  views  of  Church  order,  and  one  in 
“ mutual  love-— he  violently  separated  into  two  Denomina- 
“ tions?  We  cannot  believe  it.  Suppose  the  case  of  two 
“ Churches  origin  aby  distinct.  By  coming  into  close  contact, 
“ and  becoming  better  acquainted  with  each  other,  they  find 
“ that  they  hold  to  the  same  doctrinal  standards,  and  they 
“ explain  them  in  the  same  manner ; they  have  the  same 
“ form  of  Church  government,  and  their  officers  are  chosen, 
“ and  set  apart  in  the  same  way  ; they  have  the  same  order 
“ of  worship,  and  of  administering  the  sacraments  ; all  their 
“ customs,  civil,  social,  and  religious,  are  precisely  alike, 
“ and  they  love  each  other  dearly  ; should  not  such  churches 
“ unite  and  form  hut  one  Denomination  ? Yet,  such  a suppo- 
“ sition  does  not,  and  cannot,  even  after  you  allow  all  the 
“ likeness  and  unity  between  the  two  churches  it  is  possible 
“ to  conceive  of,  represent  the  circumstances  of  the  churches 
“ gathered  by  us,  and  by  our  Scotch  brethren  of  the  English 
“ Presbyterian  Church.  Our  [theirs  and  ours]  Churches 
“ originally  were  one,  and  still  are  one  ; and  the  question  is 
“ not  whether  those  churches  shall  be  united,  but,  shall 
“ they  be  separated  ? Possibly  (not  probably)  the  question 
“ will  be  asked,  why  were  these  churches  allowed  originally 
“ to  become  one?  We  answer,  God  made  them  so,  and  that 
“ without  any  plan  or  forethought  on  out  part,  and  now  we 
“ thank  him  for  his  blessing  that  he  has  made  them  one,  and 
“ that  he  has  blessed  them  because  they  are  one. 

“ That  misconceptions  have  got  abroad  in  our  Church  con- 


21 


“ cernin"  our  views,  we  have  abundant  evidence  from  various 
“ private  letters.  They  were  written  with  the  most  kindly 
“ feelings  towards  us,  but  evidently  under  the  impression  that 
“ we  find  difficulty  in  organizing  our  churches  according  to 
“ the  order  of  the  Dutch  Church.  We  have  never  found  any 
“ difficulty  of  this  kind.  It  is  true  that  when  we  were  called 
“ to  the  solemn  duty  of  commencing  a church  organization  in 
“ an  empire  containing  one-third  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
“ globe,  we  gave  the  subject  of  church  polity  a more  careful 
“ investigation  than  we  had  ever  before  given  it.  The  result 
“ of  this  investigation  was  a cordial  (and,  as  we  think,  intelli- 
“gent)  approval  of  the  order  and  forms  of  our  own  Church. 
“We  have  commenced  our  organization  according  to  the 
“ order  of  the  Dutch  Church,  and  we  expect  to  proceed,  as 
“ fast  as  the  providence  and  grace  of  God  lead  the  way,  after 
“the  same  order;  and  we  use  the  forms  of  our  own  Church. 
“Our  Presbyterian  brethren  unite  with  us  in  these  things. 

“ But  it  is  not  strange  that  such  misconceptions  should  be 
“ spread  in  the  Church.  They  are  the  necessary  result  of 
“ publishing  certain  remarks  made  in  Synod  concerning  our 
“ paper,  without  publishing  the  paper  itself. 

“ In  the  Report  of  the  Synod,  Synod’s  Board,  Board  of  F oreign 
“ Missions,  it  is  said  : ‘ It  would  have  been  wrell  if  the  memorial 
“ ‘ had  been  placed,  in  a printed  form,  in  the  hands  of  the  min- 
“ ‘ istry.  This  they  [the  Missionaries]  suggested,  but  the 
‘“Board  felt  it  was  purely  a Synodical  matter — that  they 
“ ‘ could  not  act  in  the  case.’  With  all  due  respect,  and  with 
“ the  kindest  feelings,  we  desire  to  make  three  remarks  on 
“ this  subject.  First.  We  do  not  understand  the  principle 
“ on  which  the  Board  felt  called  upon  to  decide  whether  our 
“ letter  should  be  published  or  not.  It  was  not  addressed  to 
“ the  Board,  nor  sent  to  the  care  of  the  Board.  The  opinion 
“ of  members  of  the  Board  as  individuals  might  have  been 


22 


“ asked,  but  we  suppose  that  the  Board  in  their  official  capa- 
“ city  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  paper.  Secondly.  Inasmuch 
“ as  the  paper  emanated  from  us,  if  ‘ it  would  have  been 
“‘well  ’ to  have  had  it  published,  our  suggestion  was  a suffi- 
“ cient  warrant  for  its  publication.  The  responsibility  would 
“ have  been  ours.  It  had  not  yet  become  a Synodical  matter. 
“ Afterwards  it  would  have  been  a legitimate  question  for  the 
“ Synod  to  decide  whether  they  would  entertain  a paper  com- 
“ ing  before  them  in  such  a manner.  This  question  might 
“ well  have  been  left  to  General  Synod.  Thirdly.  A short 
“ time  previous  to  the  writing  of  that  paper,  unless  our 
“ memory  is  greatly  at  fault,  a communication  was  received 
“ from  the  Avcot  Mission  (or  Classis  of  Arcot),  addressed  to 
“ General  Synod,  which  was  thus  published,  according  to  the 
“ request  of  the  Arcot  brethren,  and  without  the  authority 
“ of  Synod. 

“ Our  position  is  a somewhat  painful  one.  We  desire 
“ to  give  offense  to  no  one,  and  we  do  not  wish  to  appear 
“ before  the  Church  as  disputants.  We  have  no  contro- 
“ versy  with  any.  We  have  neither  the  time  nor  inclination 
“ for  controversy.  We  are  ‘ doing  a great  work  ’ and 
“ cannot  ‘ come  down.’  Yet,  our  duty  to  these  Churches 
“here,  and  to  the  Church  at  home,  and  to  our  Master,  de- 
“ mands  of  us  imperatively,  that  we  state  fully  and  frankly 
“ our  views.  We  have  the  utmost  confidence  in  our  Church. 
“ We  have  proved  this  by  endeavoring  to  get  our  views  fully 
“ known.  And  we  feel  grateful  for  the  spirit  of  kindness 
“ towards  us  manifested  in  the  action  of  Synod,  and  also  in 
“ the  letters  received  from  fathers  and  brethren  in  the  min- 
istry, notwithstanding  their  misconception  of  our  views. 
“But,  we  have  also  learned,  how  easily  our  views  may  be 
“mistaken.  In  our  paper,  addressed  to  General  Synod, 
“when  discussing  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  Synod’s 


23 


“jurisdiction  over  churches  so  far  removed  in  time,  distance, 
“and  circumstances,  we  remarked: — ‘ Will  written  corre- 
“ ‘spondence  supply  the  place  of  representation  ? It  would 
“ ‘place  our  Classis  under  great  disadvantages.  There  must 
“ ‘usually  be  a delay  of  one  or  two  years  on  every  subject 
“‘on  which  there  is  need  of  a decision  by  either  Synod.  If 
“ ‘anything  is  not  understood,  or  is  misunderstood,  in  our 
“ ‘ communications,  there  will  be  no  one  to  explain  for  us. 
“‘Difficulties  of  this  kind,  from  want  of  knowledge  of  the 
“ ‘ civil  and  social  circumstances  of  this  people  may  frequent- 
“ ‘ ly  occur.  Could  we  have  representatives  from  among  us, 
“ ‘ they  could  usually  be  easily  explained  ; but  without  this 
“ ‘representation,  they  can  only  be  explained  by  a long  cor- 
“ ‘ respondence,  which  may  cause  years  of  delay.’  The 
“ whole  of  this  misunderstanding,  which  has  arisen  out  of  our 
“ first  communication,  and  the  length  of  time  and  the  amount 
“ of  correspondence  which  may  yet  be  necessary,  before  we 
“ can  see  ‘ eye  to  eye,’  give  a striking  illustration  of  the 
“ force  of  these  remarks.” 

So  far  as  the  preamble  and  resolutions  of  the  Synod  of 
1857  embody  the  doctrines,  and  what  we  supposed  to  be  the 
policy  of  our  Church,  we  heartily  agreed  with  them.  Of 
course  we  were  pained  to  see  that  they  implied,  that,  in  or- 
ganizing a Church  at  Amoy,  we  had  not  proceeded  according 
to  the  order  of  our  Church,  or  had  found  great  difficulty  in 
doing  so.  This  was  altogether  a mistake,  and  was  already 
producing  evil  results.  We  think  there  is  another  mistake 
in  the  preamble.  It  seems  small,  but  because  of  this  fact, 
and  of  its  plausibility,  it  has  done  more,  perhaps,  than  any- 
thing else  in  leading  our  Church  into  the  false  position 
which  she  seems  now  to  occupy.  Therefore,  we  should  ex- 
amine it  with  some  care.  It  is  the  assumption,  as  a matter 
of  course,  that,  “the  converts  at  Amoy”  are  “an  integral 


24 


‘ part  of  our  Church,”  in  this  country.  What  made  them  so  ? 
Is  it  because  they  were  converted  through  the  instrumentali- 
ty of  the  preaching  of  our  Missionaries?  This  is  a new  doc- 
trine, that  a convert  as  a matter  of  course  belongs  to  the 
Church  of  the  preacher  through  whose  instrumentality  he  has 
been  led  unto  Christ.  Perhaps  it  was  the  doctrine  of  some 
of  the  Corinthians,  when  they  said,  “ I am  of  Paul,  and  I of 
“ Apollos,”  &c.,  but  it  was  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostle  who 
reproved  them.  Besides  this,  how  shall  we  know  which  of 
them  were  converted  through  our  instrumentality  ? The 
English  Presbyterian  brethren  and  ourselves  have  preached 
indiscriminately.  Is  it  because  they  were  baptized  by  our 
Missionaries  ? But  many  of  them  were  baptized  by  the  Eng- 
lish Presbyterian  brethren.  They  have  baptized  in  our 
churches,  and  we  in  theirs.  If  they  be  an  integral  part  of 
the  Dutch  Church  in  America,  they  are  also  an  integral  part 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  England.  We,  it  is  true,  bap- 
tized a majority,  say  two-thirds.  Are  thejq  then,  two-thirds 
of  an  integral  part  in  America,  and  one-third  of  an  integral 
part  in  England?  No.  The  whole  is  a fallacy.  Each  indi- 
vidual Church  there  is  an  integral  part  of  the  whole  of  them. 
All  together,  they  form  an  integer.  They  might  by  the  act 
of  our  Church,  and  a correlative  act  on  their  own  part,  become 
an  integral  part  of  the  Church  in  America  ? In  a similar  way 
they  might  become  an  integral  part  of  the  Church  in  Euglaud. 
They  are  now  an  integer  of  themselves.  To  make  one  por- 
tion of  them  an  integral  part  of  the  Church  in  this  country, 
and  another  portion  an  integral  part  of  the  Church  in  Eng- 
land, is  to  be  guilty  of  causing  a violent  rupture. 

We  felt  that  the  consequences  were  so  momentous,  that, 
before  we  should  allow  ourselves  to  be  instrumental  in  thus 
(as  we  supposed)  rending  the  “ Body  of  Christ  ” at  Amoy, 
we  should  make  another  effort  to  get  the  facts  before  the 


Church.  As  yet,  we  could  not,  if  we  would,  carry  out  the 
resolution  of  Synod,  and  organize  a Chassis  in  connection  with 
the  Particular  Synod  of  Albany,  for,  it  was  not  till  several 
years  after,  only  very  recently,  that  we  had  materials 
“ enough  to  render  the  permanency  of  such  an  organization 
reasonably  certain.”  Therefore  we  wrote,  as  above,  under 
date  of  December  23,  1S-57,  and  frequently  wrote  on  the  sub- 
ject, as  occasion  offered. 

Although  our  views  were  not  made  public  (the  Board  judg- 
ing that  they  had  no  right,  or  that  it  would  not  be  for  the 
good  of  the  Church,  and  the  interests  of  the  Mission,  to 
publish  them),  still  we  continued  to  prosecute  our  labors,  in 
connection  with  the  English  Presbyterian  brethren,  receiving 
and  giving  mutual  assistance.  We  were  encouraged  thus  to 

o O o 

continue  our  work  : 1 . Because  of  letters  we  received 

from  home,  some  of  them  written  by  individuals  who  were 
able  advocates  of  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  1S57.  They 
told  us  that  it  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that  a separation 
must  come  between  us  and  the  brethren  of  the  English  Pres- 
byterian Church,  but  they  would  not  have  us  inaugurate  that 
separation.  2.  (and  more  important)  Because  a marvelous 
blessing  from  on  high  was  attending  our  labors.  3.  (and 
most  important)  Because  we  knew  this  harmonious  and  mutual 
assistance  to  be  entirely  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the 
Gospel. 

In  process  of  time  a Church  was  organized  at  Chioh-be  by 
the  appointment  of  elders  and  deacons,  then  at  Peh-chui-ia, 
then  at  Mapeng,  and  then  the  Church  at  Amoy  was  divided 
into  two  distinct  organizations.  Thus  we  had  five  organized 
churches,  all  of  our  order — the  elders  and  deacons  chosen  and 
set  apart  according  to  our  Forms,  and  all  our  Forms  in  use  so 
far  as  there  was  yet  occasion  tor  them.  Two  of  these  churches 
were  under  the  especial  care  of  the  English  Presbyterians, 


26 


and  pecuniarily  the  work  was  sustained  by  funds  collected 
in  England  and  Scotland.  The  other  three  were  under  our 
especial  care.  The  pecuniary  expenses,  beyond  what  the 
native  churches  could  themselves  raise,  were  borne  by  our 
Church  at  home. 

One  of  the  essential  principles  of  our  Church  polity  is,  that 
individual  Churches  are  not  independent  of  each  other.  They 
are  members  one  of  another.  They  are  to  be  subject  to  each 
other.  They  are  individual  parts  of  a whole.  Each  part  should 
be  subject  to  the  whole.  Hence  the  necessity  of  higher  judi- 
catories. Thus  we  felt  that  these  five  churches  had  a right 
to  an  ecclesiastical  organization,  by  which  they  might  enjoy 
this  essential  principle  of  Presbyterianism.  [I  trust  we  shall 
hear  no  more  of  the  charge  that  the  Missionaries  at  Amoy 
are  Congregationalists.]  But  we  were  afraid  to  give  this 
organization  to  the  native  churches,  lest  we  should  give 
offense  at  home.  We  knew  that  we  were  misunderstood, 
and  as  yet  could  see  no  way  to  make  the  Church  acquainted 
with  our  position  and  our  views.  If  the  Master  should 
plainly  call  us  to  go  forward,  of  course  we  must  obey,  and 
leave  the  results  with  Him. 

These  churches,  having  grown  out  of  each  other,  were 
essentially  one,  and  were  as  closely  united  together  as  it  was 
possible  for  them  to  be,  without  a formal  organization.  The 
first  formal  meeting  of  all  these  churches  was  held  at 
Chioh-be  (a  church  under  our  care),  in  1S61.  No  ecclesias- 
tical power  was  assumed.  The  next  similar  meeting  was 
held  in  April,  1S62,  in  the  churches  at  Amoj'.  This  was 
still  more  formal.  It  was  composed  of  all  the  Missionaries 
of  our  own  and  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  and  of 
one  representative  Elder  from  each  of  the  five  organized 
churches.  This  body  may  be  called  an  incipient  Classis. 
The  only  ecclesiastical  power  exercised,  however,  was  con- 


27 


nected  with  church  discipline.  Heretofore  each  individual 
Church,  in  connection  with  the  Missionaries,  had  exercised 
the  power  of  discipline,  even  to  excommunication.  Now 
certain  cases  of  excommunication  were  referred  by  individual 
Consistories  to,  and  acted  on  by,  this  body.  Is  it  necessary 
to  defend  such  acts?  We  felt  that  if  each  individual  church 
could  exercise  such  power,  and  the  principles  of  our  Presby- 
terianism be  scriptural,  then  could  a body,  composed  of  the 
representatives  of  these  churches,  together  with  the  Mis- 
sionaries, with  safety  exercise  such  power.  It  was  approach- 
ing as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  practice  of  our  Church  at 
home.  We  expected  soon  to  be  called  to  the  performance 
of  ecclesiastical  acts  more  momentous.  Already  had  two  of 
the  churches  chosen  two  of  the  native  members,  who  were 
now  engaged  in  careful  study,  that  in  due  time  they  might 
be  set  apart  to  the  office  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Word,  and 
ordained  pastors  of  the  churches  respectively  choosing  them. 
But  for  reasons  given  above  we  would  not  go  forward  faster 
than  we  were  plainly  led  by  the  hand  of  Providence.  There- 
fore, while  the  Missionaries,  in  presence  of  this  assembly,  ex- 
amined these  pastors-elect,  in  reference  to  their  qualifications 
for  the  office  of  Pastor,  the  body,  as  such,  took  no  part  in  the 
examination. 

This  incipient  Classis  met  next  in  the  autumn  of  the 
same  year  at  Peh-chui-ia,  a church  under  the  care  of  the  Eng- 
lish Presbyterian  brethren.  At  this  meeting  it  became  a real 
Classis,  not  fully  developed  as  a Classis  in  a mature  Church, 
but  possessing  the  constituent  elements  and  performing  the 
functions  of  a Classis.  Not  only  were  there  cases  of  dis- 
cipline to  act  on,  but  a distinct  application  was  made  by 
one  of  the  churches,  that  a pastor  be  ordained,  and  placed 
over  them.  The  body  decided,  not  only  that  they  had  the 
right,  but  that  the  plain  call  of  the  Great  Head  of  the 


28 


Church  made  it  their  duty  to  go  forward  in  this  matter. 
Preliminary  steps  were  taken,  other  meetings  of  Classis  were 
appointed  and  held,  candidates  were  examined,  calls  pre- 
sented and  approved,  until  early  in  the  present  year  the 
First  and  Second  Churches  at  Amoy  had  each  a native 
pastor  ordained  and  installed  over  them.  By  the  authority 
of  this  Classis,  in  the  early  part  of  this  year,  a third  church 
was  organized  at  Amoy  according  to  our  order.  It  is  in 
the  suburb  called  E-mng-kang,  and  is  under  the  especial 
care  of  the  English  Presbyterian  brethren,  as  mentioned  in 
a previous  part  of  this  paper.  So  now  there  are  six  organ- 
ized churches,  all  of  the  same  order,  and  some  others  almost 
ready  to  be  organized.  If  the  Missionaries  at  Amoy  have 
been  guilty  of  any  great  mistake,  it  has  been  in  this  matter 
of  forming  such  a Classis,  and  proceeding  to  the  ordination 
and  installation  of  native  pastors,  and  the  organization  of 
new  churches.  Therefore,  this  subject  demands  a careful 
examination. 

When  we  commenced  the  work  among  the  heathen,  it 
was  found  that  the  Constitution  of  our  Church  had  made  no 
provision  for  such  work  beyond  the  simple  ordaining  of 
men  as  Missionaries.  We  might  preach  the  gospel,  but  no 
provision  was  made  for  receiving  into  church  fellowship, 
administering  the  sacraments,  electing  and  ordaining  office- 
bearers, and  all  the  incipient  steps  of  the  organization  of 
the  Church  from  among  the  heathen.  The  Constitution 
was  made  for  the  government  of  a Church  already  organ- 
ized and  matured,  and  in  America ; therefore,  it  is  not 
strange  that  such  things  were  not  provided  for.  Our  duty 
seemed  very  plain.  We  must  fall  back  on  the  great  princi- 
ples of  church  government  taught  in  the  Word  of  God. 
We  believed  these  principles  to  be  set  forth  in  the  Consti- 
tution, and  other  standards  of  our  Church. 


29 


WI  ien,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  preached  Word, 
men  gave  satisfactory  evidence  that  they  had  experienced 
“ the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,”  without  the  advice  of 
Consistories,  by  virtue  of  our  office  of  Ministers  of  the 
Word,  we  administered  to  them  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
thus  admitting  them  into  the  church  Now  the  Lord’s 
Supper  must  be  administered  to  these  believers,  baptism  to 
their  infant  children,  and  to  new  converts,  and  the  discipline 
of  God’s  house  maintained.  By  virtue  of  that  same  office, 
and  by  virtue  of  the  authority  given  by  the  Master  to  his 
Church,  we  felt  that  we  had  the  right,  aye,  that  it  was  our 
bounden  duty,  to  perform  such  acts.  We  could  not  yet  for 
a long  time  set  apart  a proper  Consistory,  but  we  must  not 
therefore  be  “ lords  over  God’s  heritage.”  In  receiving  new 
members,  and  in  all  acts  of  discipline,  we  must  advise  with 
the  church  already  gathered. 

The  church  grew,  and  in  due  time  a Consistory  was  called 
for  ; must  the  work  stop,  because  the  Constitution  had  made 
no  provision?  No.  The  little  church  had  the  right  to  choose 
men,  and  having  chosen  suitable  men,  it  was  our  duty  to  ordain 
them.  The  authority  we  thus  exercised  was  not  usurped, 
but  was  implied  in  the  commission  we  received  from  our 
Master  through  the  Church.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
authority  of  the  brethren  at  Amoy,  when,  in  connection  with 
the  representative  elders  of  the  various  churches,  they  pro- 
ceeded to  the  ordination  of  native  pastors,  and  the  organiza- 
tion of  new  churches.  It  was  not  necessary  for  the  perform- 
ance of  every  act  to  get  a new  commission  from  the  Church. 
When  the  Church  sent  us  out,  the  one  commission  contained 
all  the  authority  necessary  for  the  complete  organization 
of  the  church.  It  is  an  absurdity  to  deny,  on  constitutional 
grounds,  the  right  of  the  Missionaries  to  perform  these  last 
acts  unless  you  deny  their  right  to  perform  all  their  other 


30 


acts  except  the  simple  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  Their  acts 
were  all  extra,  not  contra  constitutional.  If  their  authority 
thus  to  act  be  justified  in  reference  to  the  former  acts,  and 
denied  in  reference  to  the  latter,  the  justification  and  denial 
must  be  on  other  grounds  than  the  Constitution  of  our 
Church. 

Will  any  one  assert  that  the  Classis  thus  formed  at  Amoy 
is  not  a Classis  de  facto  ? or  that  the  native  pastors  ordained 
and  installed  by  that  body  are  not  scriplurally  set  apart  to 
their  offices,  and  that  its  other  acts  are  null  and  void?  If  so, 
then,  as  yet,  there  are  no  organized  churches — no  Consisto- 
ries— -at  Amoy,  and  there  have  been  no  scriptural  baptisms, 
for  all  ecclesiastical  acts  performed  there,  have  been  perform- 
ed on  the  same  principles,  and  by  the  same  authority.  No 
one  will  have  the  hardihood  to  assert  such  a doctrine.  It 
will  be  admitted  that  there  is  a Classis  dc  facto  at  Amoy. 
Then  it  is  competent  to  perform  all  the  functions  of  a Classis. 
But  it  will  not  be  contended  that  that  Classis  is  a part  of  the 
Dutch  Church  in  America.  Yet  it  is  essentially  like  a Classis 
in  America,  just  so  far  as  the  present  state  of  development 
of  the  Church  at  Amoy,  and  its  Chinese  character,  render 
likeness  possible.  It  is  Chinese , not  American.  The  organiza- 
tion of  such  a Church  is  what  we  always  supposed  required 
of  us.  We  never  imagined  that  we  were  sent  to  organize  the 
American  Dutch  Church  in  China.  If  your  Missionaries  are 
allowed  to  proceed,  and  are  not  required  to  repel  the  English 
Presbyterian  brethren  from  their  united  labors  with  us,  there 
will  be  but  one  Church  at  Amoy  of  the  Presbyterian  order. 
With  the  continued  blessing  of  God  on  such  harmonious 
labor,  it  will  be  the  Church  of  that  region.  It  will  be  dear  to 
both  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  England,  and  to  our  Church 
in  this  land,  and  peculiarly  dear  to  our  Church  in  this  coun- 
try, because  of  its  Dutch  characteristics.  Your  Missionaries 


31 


will  still  be  your  agents,  responsible  to  the  Church  at  home, 
as  they  have  always  been.  The  near  relation  to  the  Church 
in  this  land,  which  they  have  always  held,  they  desire  to  re- 
tain. The  late  action  of  Synod  contemplates  the  formation 
of  two  denominations  at  Amoy  of  the  Presbyterian  order,  giving 
our  peculiarities  to  one-half  instead  of  to  the  whole , thus  producing 
rivalries,  injuring  the  efficiency  of  the  native  churches,  and  making 
the  relation  of  the  Missionaries  to  the  Church  at  home  more  distant, 
thus  weakening  your  hold  on  them,  and  all,  <ts  we  think,  without 
any  remunerating  advantages.  But  before  we  proceed  to 
the  discussion  of  this  subject,  a few  other  preliminaries  de- 
mand some  attention. 

The  English  Presbyterians,  as  they  are  accustomed  to 
speak  of  all  the  Classes  of  our  Church  in  America,  call  this 
Classis  at  Amoy  “ a Presbytery."  Hence  the  question  has 
been  put  to  us  with  all  sincerity  and  gravity,  “Is  it  a Classis, 
or  is  it  a Presbytery  ?"  Some  seem  to  be  afraid  that  the 
Church  we  are  forming  will  be  half  Dutch  and  half  Presby- 
terian, and  that  it  will  soon  be  swallowed  up  by  the  Presby- 
terians ! Are  there  any  ministers,  or  elders,  or  intelligent 
members  of  the  Dutch  Church,  who  have  yet  to  learn  that 
a Classis  is  a Presbytery,  and  that  the  Dutch  Church  is  a 
Presbyterian  Church?  Surely  not.  Why,  then,  such  ques- 
tions and  suggestions  ? Can  they  be  designed  to  prejudice 
the  Church  at  home  against  the  ecclesiastical  body  which 
has  grown  up  at  Amoy  ? We  will  not  impute  such  a 
motive,  and,  therefore,  I merely  say  that  we  are  surprised 
at  all  such  remarks.  It  is  proper  for  the  English  Presby- 
terian brethren  to  speak  of  the  Presbytery  at  Amoy.  They 
never  speak  of  it  as  an  English  Presbytery.  They  do  not 
regard  it  as  a part  of  the  Church  in  England,  but  as  a 
purely  Chinese  Church.  They  have  liberality  enough  to 
assist  in  building  up  such  a Church,  even  though  it  has  some 


32 


things  peculiar  to  us,  for  it  has  all  the  essentials  of  their 
own  order.  Will  it  not  seem  to  them  that  our  Church  is 
deficient  in  liberality,  when  they  learn  the  decision  of  the 
last  Synod  ? 

In  connection  with  this  subject,  it  is  proper  to  speak 
more  particularly  of  the  liberality  of  the  English  Presby- 
terian Church.  When  it  is  remembered  that  that  Church  is 
really  a branch  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  it  will  not 
be  supposed  that  their  liberality  is  the  result  of  indifference 
to  anything  which  they  regard  essential  or  important. 
Seldom  has  our  world  witnessed  such  sacrifice  for  the  sake 
of  principle  as  was  exhibited  by  that  Church,  when  she 
came  out  from  the  Establishment.  Their  liberality  is  a 
beautiful  illustration  of  the  Christian  spirit.  The  course  of 
their  Missionaries  at  the  first  organization  of  a church  at 
Amoy,  and  the  approval  thereof,  have  been  already  alluded 
to.  In  consequence  of  the  recent  formation  of  a Classis,  the 
subject  naturally  came  up  again  this  year.  It  was  laid 
before  their  Synod,  which  met  a few  weeks  previous  to 
ours.  In  the  report  of  their  Foreign  Committee,  which 
corresponds  to  our  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  the  following 
language  is  used  in  reference  to  the  Church  at  Amoy  : 

“ As  all  the  elements  of  Presbyterian  organization  thus 
“ existed  [each  church  having  native  elders],  a further  step 
“ was  taken  last  April  [1SG2],  when  a Presbytery  was  con- 
“ stituted  at  Amoy  by  mutual  consent,  consisting  of  all  the 
“ American  brethren  and  our  own,  as  well  as  representative 
“ elders  from  the  several  congregations.  Its  name  is  neither 

O O 

“ the  Greek  £ Presbytery’  employed  in  this  country,  nor  is  it 
“ the  Latin  ‘ Classis,’  which  has  long  been  used  in  Holland  ; 
“ but  it  is  ‘ Tai  Tiong-lo-lioey,’  or  Great  Meeting  of  Elders, 
“ genuine  Chinese,  and  a hopeful  earnest  of  the  facility  with 
“ which  our  representative  and  consultative  system  of  polity 


33 


“ will  find  its  way  among  a sensible  and  self-governing  people. 
“ Of  course  it  is  not  intended  that  this  Presbytery  should  in 
“ any  way  come  between  the  Missionaries  themselves  and 
“ the  Committee  or  Board  by  which  the  respective  Missions 
“ are  administered  at  home ; but  for  the  management  of 
“ local  matters,  for  disposing  of  questions  which  may  arise 
“ in  the  several  congregations,  and  in  regard  to  which  a 
“ session  may  require  counsel  or  control  ; and  for  the  very 
“ important  purpose  of  exemplifying  in  the  most  legitimate 
“ way  ecclesiastical  unity,  it  is  essential  that  Missionaries 
“ and  native  office-bearers  should  come  together  in  some 
“ such  capacity.  The  proceedings  are  conducted  in  Chinese, 
“ which  is  the  only  language  understood  by  all  the  members 
“ of  Court,  and  it  is  in  Chinese  that  the  minutes  are  kept. 
“ Three  meetings  have  already  been  held.  At  the  last, 
“ held  in  January,  important  business  was  transacted  affect- 
“ ing  the  1st  and  2d  Congregations  of  Amoy,  both  of  which 
“ are  under  the  immediate  superintendence  of  the  American 
“ Mission.  Each  congregation  is  desirous  of  the  settlement 
“ of  a stated  pastor,  and  each  has  agreed  to  call  a minister, 
“ the  one  congregation  promising  a stipend  of  $14  a month, 
“ and  the  other  $13.  The  calls  were  sustained,  and  the 
“ Presbytery  agreed  to  meet  on  February  21st,  to  proceed 
“ with  the  4 trials’  of  the  brethren  thus  elected.  As  these 
“ proved  satisfactory,  Sabbath,  the  29th  of  last  month,  was 
“ appointed  as  the  day  for  their  ordination. 

“ Dr.  Peltz,  the  esteemed  Corresponding  Secretary  of  the 
“ Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  R.  P.  D.  C.  of  N.  A.,  has 
“ apprised  the  Committee,  that  it  is  possible  that  a Presby- 
“ tery  of  this  composite  character  may  not  secure  the  ap- 
“ proval  of  their  Synod.  In  separating  from  the  A.  B.  C. 
“ F.  M.,  and  in  setting  up  a separate  and  ecclesiastically 
3 


34 


“ organized  mission,  that  Synod  was  anxious  to  introduce  into 
“ its  different  Mission  fields  a system  of  Church  government 
“ which  it  believed  to  be  scriptural,  and  adapted  to  all 
“ lands.  Consequently,  in  these  Mission  fields  it  sought  to 
“ form  Classes  or  Presbyteries  which  should  be  connected 
“ with  Provincial  and  General  Synods  in  the  same  way  as 
“ are  the  Classes  on  the  American  continent.  And  Dr.  Peltz 
“ is  apprehensive  lest  the  General  Synod  in  America  should 
“ regard  as  a deviation  from  this  plan  the  amalgamation  in 
“ one  Presbytery  of  their  own  agents  with  those  of  another 
“ Church. 

“ We  are  hopeful,  however,  that  on  further  consideration, 
“ our  brethren  in  America  may  allow  their  Missionaries  in 
“ China  to  continue  the  present  arrangement,  at  least  until 
“ such  time  as  it  is  found  that  actual  difficulties  arise  in  the 
“ way  of  carrying  it  out.  ‘ Behold  how  good  and  how  pleas- 
“ ‘ ant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell  together  in  unity  and  there 
“ are  few  brethren  towards  whom  we  feel  closer  affinity  than 
“ the  members  of  that  Church,  which  was  represented  of  old 
“ by  Gomarusand  Witsius,  by  Voet  and  March,  and  Bernard 
“ de  Moore,  and  whose  Synod  of  Dort  preceded  in  time,  and 
“ pioneered  in  doctrine,  our  own  Westminster  Assembly. 
“ Like  them,  we  love  that  Presbyterianism  and  that  Calvin- 
“ ism  which  we  hold  in  common,  and  we  wish  to  carry  them 
“ wherever  we  go  ; but  we  fear  that  it  would  not  be  doing 
“justice  to  either,  and  that  it  might  compromise  that  name 
“ which  is  above  every  other,  if,  on  the  shores  of  China,  we 
“ were  to  unfurl  a separate  standard.  We  would,  therefore, 
“ not  only  respectfully  recommend  to  the  Synod  to  allow  its 
“ Missionaries  to  unite,  Presbyterially  as  well  as  practically, 
“ with  the  brethren  of  the  R.  D.  C. ; but  we  would  express 
“ the  earnest  hope  that  the  Synod  of  the  sister  Church  in 


“ America  may  find  itself  at  liberty  to  extend  to  its  Mission- 
“ aries  a similar  freedom.” 

These  sentiments  were  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Synod 
of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church. 

It  seems  perfectly  reasonable  that  two  Churches  of  Christ 
so  nearly  alike,  in  attempting  to  plant  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  the  same  place  in  a heathen  land,  should  strive,  if  possible, 
to  form  their  converts  into  one  organization.  The  existence 
of  different  Denominations  in  the  same  place  in  any  Christian 
land,  at  the  best,  is  only  a necessary  evil.  God  may  bring 
some  good  out  of  this  evil,  but  this  is  not  a sufficient  reason 
why  we  should  create  such  divisions,  for  their  own  sake. 
Hence,  the  liberality  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church  is 
so  manifestly  in  accordance  with  the  Christian  spirit,  that  it 
might  have  attracted  no  especial  notice  from  us.  But  the 
proceedings  of  our  own  Synod,  by  contrast,  as  it  seems  to 
us,  have  forced  it  out  iu  bold  relief.  They  were  willing  to 
support  their  Missionaries  in  laboring  with  ours,  and  building 
up  a Chinese  Church,  not  differing  essentially  from  theirs, 
but  with  some  characteristics  peculiar  to  ours.  TVe,  though 
the  Church  thus  organized  has  not  only  all  the  essentials 
but  all  the  peculiarities  of  our  own  Church,  still  refuse  such 
Christian  co-operation,  preferring  to  rend  asunder  the  Church 
already  formed,  and  organize  a part  of  it  a distinct  Denomina- 
tion, connected  with  the  Church  in  America.  I cannot  yet 
believe  that  such  is  the  sentiment  of  our  Church.  There 
must  be  some  great  misapprehension.  But  such  is  really  the 
decision  of  the  last  Synod.  Here  is  the  language  of  the  Com- 
mittee which,  was  adopted  by  the  General  Synod  : 

“ Your  Committee  do  not  see  any  propriety  in  re-enact- 
“ ing  the  law  of  1S57  already  quoted,  because  it  has  never 
“ been  repealed,  and  remains  therefore  in  full  force  and  vir- 
“ tue.  Nor,  if  the  reasoning  in  this  report  be  correct,  would 


36 


“ they  have  the  law  repealed,  believing  as  they  do,  that  the 
“ maintenance  of  the  principle  contained  in  it  is  essential  to 
“ the  success  of  our  Missionary  operations  in  foreign  parts, 
“ and  to  the  wholesome  liberality  of  the  Church  at  home. 

“ The  Committee  are  not  prepared,  however,  to  recom- 
“ mend  that  any  violent  or  coercive  resolutions  should  be 
“ adopted  for  the  purpose  of  constraining  our  brethren  in 
“Amoy  to  a course  of  procedure  which  would  rudely  sever 
“ the  brotherly  ties  that  unite  them  with  the  Missionaries  of 
“ the  English  Presbyterian  Church.  But  a Christian  dis- 
“ cretion  will  enable  them,  on  the  receipt  of  the  decision 
“ of  the  present  Synod  in  this  matter,  now  under  consider- 
“ ation,  to  take  such  initial  steps  as  are  necessary  to  the 
“ speedy  formation  of  a classis.  Much  must  be  left  to  their 
“ discretion,  prudence,  and  judgment.  But  of  the  wish  and 
“ expectation  of  this  Synod  to  have  their  action  conform, 
“ as  soon  as  may  be,  to  the  resolutions  of  1S57,  your  Com- 
“ mittee  think  the  brethren  at  Amoy  should  be  distinctly  in- 
“ formed.  They  therefore  offer  the  following  : 

“ 1.  Resolved , that  the  General  Synod,  having  adopted  and 
“ tested  its  plan  of  conducting  Foreign  Missions,  can  see  no 
“reason  for  abolishing  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  believe  it  to 
“ be  adapted  to  the  promotion  of  the  best  interests  of  the 
“ Foreign  Missionary  Churches,  and  of  the  denomination  sup- 
“ porting  them. 

“ 2.  That  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  be,  and  hereby 
“ is,  instructed  to  send  to  our  Missionaries  a copy  or  copies 
“ of  this  report,  as  containing  the  well-considered  delivcr- 
“ ance  of  the  Synod  respecting  their  present  relations  and 
“ future  duty. 

“3.  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Foreign  Board  be,  and 
“ hereby  is,  directed  to  send  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hamilton,  of 


37 


“ London,  Convener  of  the  Presbyterian  Committee,  a copy 
“ of  this  Report,  with  a copy  of  the  action  of  1857,  and  that 
“ he  inform  him  by  letter  of  the  wishes  and  expectations  of 
“ the  Synod  respecting  the  ecclesiastical  relations  which  this 
“ body  desires  its  churches  in  Amoy  to  sustain  to  it.” 

The  above  is  only  an  extract  from  the  close  of  the  Report 
of  the  Committee,  and  contains  the  result  at  which  they 
arrived.  In  reference  to  it  we  would  make  three  remarks. 
(1).  It  (Res.  3)  seems  rather  a cavalier  answer  to  the  frater- 
nal wish  of  the  Synod  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church, 
as  expressed  in  their  action.  (2.)  The  action  of  Synod  is 
made  to  rest  (Res.  1)  on  the  fact  that  Synod  had  “ tested” 
this  “ plan  of  conducting  Foreign  Missions.”  If  this  be  so, 
and  the  plan  had  been  found  by  experiment  unobjectionable, 
the  argument  is  not  without  force.  But  how  and  where  has 
this  test  been  applied,  and  found  so  satisfactory  ? Our  Church 
has  three  Missions  among  the  heathen : one  in  India,  one 
in  China,  and  one  in  Japan.  Has  it  been  tested  in  Japan  ? 
Xo.  They  have  not  yet  a single  native  Church.  Has  it  been 
tested  in  China?  If  so,  the  Missionaries  were  not  aware  of 
it.  The  test  applied  there  has  been  of  an  opposite  charac- 
ter, and  has  been  wonderfully  successful.  The  test  has  only 
been  applied  in  India,  and  has  only  begun  to  be  applied  even 
there.  There,  as  yet,  there  is  but  one  native  pastor.  Their 
Classis  is  more  American  than  Indian.  We  must  wait  until 
they  have  a native  Classis,  before  the  test  can  be  pronounced 
at  all  satisfactory.  True,  that  Mission  has  been  very  success- 
ful since  they  formed  what  is  called  a Classis  in  connection 
with  the  Synod  in  America.  But  has  it  been  more  success- 
ful than  the  Mission  at  Amoy  ? Compare  the  amount  of  la- 
bor and  the  money  expended  on  the  two  Missions,  and  then 
look  at  the  results,  and  thus  decide  about  the  tests.  It  is  in 
no  spirit  of  vainglory  that  we  call  for  such  a comparison. 


38 


Studiously  have  we  avoided  it,  and  the  responsibility  must 
rest  on  those  who  compel  us  to  it.  (3.)  No  consideration  is 
had  for  the  feelings,  wishes,  or  opinions  of  the  native 
Churches.  Some  consideration  is  shown  for  the  feelings  of 
the  English  Presbyterian  Missionaries,  This  is  as  it  ought 
to  be.  Yet  it  is  a matter  of  comparatively  little  importance. 
The  inalienable  rights  of  the  native  churches,  their  relation  to 
each  other,  their  absolute  unity— things  of  the  utmost  consequence— 
are  not  at  all  regarded,  are  entirely  ignored ! 

It  would  have  occupied  too  much  space  to  have  quoted 
the  whole  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee.  The  preceding 
part  of  it  occupies  nearly  six  pages  0f  the  Minutes  of  S}Tnod. 
Yet  we  may  not  pass  that  part  over  in  silence,  for,  while 
with  much  of  its  contents  we  have  no  dispute,  it  contains 
some  grave  mistakes  of  fact,  and,  as  we  think,  some  very 
grave  errors  of  doctrine.  It  grieves  me  to  say  thus  much, 
and  also  to  feel  compelled  to  add  the  following  strictures. 
But,  in  order  to  discuss  this  subject,  duty  required  the  careful 
examination  of  the  whole  of  the  Report,  and,  finding  in  it 
such  errors,  the  clear  statement  of  them.  It  might  be  easy, 
perhaps,  to  account  for  the  fact,  that  mistakes,  in  a report, 
unprinted,  'and  of  such  length,  should  escape  the  notice  of 
Synod,  but  an  attempt  to  apologize  for  that  body  might  give 
occasion  to  infer  more  disrespect  than  simply  to  point  out 
the  mistakes. 

After  some  introductory  remarks,  chiefly  concerning  the 
difficulty  of  their  task,  the  Committee  “ begin  with  the 
assertion  of  principles.”  These  they  make  three  in  number. 
The  sum  of  the  first  principle  is  that  a Church,  by  divine 
arrangement , has  government.  The  essential  idea  of  their 
second  principle,  so  far  as  we  can  understand  it,  is,  that  the 
Dutch  Church  has  a clearly  defined  government.  The  Mission- 
aries at  Amoy,  as  well  as  the  ministers  in  this  country, 


39 


admit  both  these  principles  fully.  But  they  do  not  affect 
the  question  in  dispute.  Not  so  with  the  third  principle  of 
the  Committee.  Lest  I might  be  supposed  to  misrepresent, 
I will  quote  their  own  language  : “ No  government  can, 
“ voluntarily,  relinquish  its  powers,  and  abnegate  its  authority 
“ without  thereby  inviting  disorder,  disquietude,  and,  in  the 
“ end,  its  destruction.”  Is  this,  indeed,  as  the  Committee 
assert,  one  of  the  “ admitted  principles  ” of  our  Church  ? 
one  of  the  “ convictions  in  the  mind  of  our  Church,  hardly 
separable  in  idea  from  its  very  existence  ?”  one  of  the  “ old 
truths  maintained  through  blood  and  flame  ?”  If  the  doc- 
trine be  true,  the  Church  in  Holland  had  no  right  to  relin- 
quish its  authority  over  the  Church  in  America.  If  this 
doctrine  be  a “ principle  ” of  our  Church,  never,  never  could 
your  Missionaries  consent  to  be  instrumental  in  bringing  the 
Church  in  China,  which  now  has  liberty  in  Christ  Jesus,  into 
such  perpetual  bondage.  Once  bring  the  Chinese  churches 
under  the  authority  of  the  Church  in  America,  and  it  mat- 
ters not  how  great  may  be  their  growth,  and  how  many  cen- 
turies may  pass  away,  the  Church  in  America  can  never 
relinquish  her  authority  over  them  ! But  this  is  not  an 
“ admitted  principle”  of  our  Church.  The  Dutch  Church  is 
protestant,  not  papal.  Instead  of  the  principle  being  one  of 
the  “ old  truths  maintained  through  blood  and  flame”  by  her, 
it  is  an  old  error  of  the  Papacy,  for  rejecting  which  she 
poured  out  her  blood  so  freely,  and  would  do  the  same  to- 
day. Yet  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee  this  error  of 
Romanism,  guilty  of  the  blood  of  thousands  upon  thousands 
of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High,  is  made  to  lie  at  the  basis  of 
the  action  of  the  last  Synod  ! 

The  Committee  next  proceed  to  the  statement  of  “ cer- 
“tain  Historic  facts.”  As  with  the  “ admitted  principles,”  so 
with  the  “ historic  facts.”  With  some  of  them  we  have  no 


40 


dispute.  But  when  they  come  to  describe  the  present  con- 
dition and  relations  of  the  churches  at  Amoy,  their  lan- 
guage, to  say  the  least,  is  very  unfortunate.  “These  six 
“ Churches,”  say  they,  “ have  grown  up  together  under 
“ such  an  interchange  and  community  of  labor  on  the  part 
“ of  our  own  Missionaries,  and  on  the  part  of  those  belong- 
“ ing  to  the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  that  all  are  said 
“ to  have  a two-fold  ecclesiastical  relation — one  with  Eng- 
“ land — one  with  America,  and  still  a third,  and  economical 
“ and  domestic  relation  among  themselves,  which  is  covered 
“ and  controlled  by  what  is  styled  ‘ The  Great  Presbyterial 
“ ‘ or  Classical  Council  of  Amoy.’  ” 

We  do  not  know  by  whom  these  native  Churches  “ are 
said  ” to  have  a two-fold  or  three-fold  ecclesiastical  relation. 
It  is  not  so  said  by  the  Missionaries.  They  contend  that 
the  native  churches  are  neither  English,  nor  American,  but 
Chinese  churches.  They  are  ecclesiastical^  related  to  each 
other,  and  ought  to  remain  so.  But  the  effort  is  now  made 
to  sever  this  ecclesiastical  relation  to  each  other,  and  bring 
half  of  them  into  ecclesiastical  relationship  with  the  Church 
in  America,  making  them  the  Protestant  Reformed  Dutch 
Church  of  North  America , in  China  ! At  present  the  native 
churches  have  an  intimate,  but  not  an  ecclesiastical , relation 
to  both  the  Church  in  England  and  America. 

From  the  above  mistaken  statement  the  Committee  have 
drawn  out  three  “ 'particulars  ” which  they  seem  to  think 
especially  worthy  of  note. 

“ 1st.  That  while  this  Chinese  Presbyterial  or  Classical 

Council  is  itself  an  autonomy — having  the  right  to  ordain 
“ ministers,  exercise  discipline,  and  do  whatever  else  a ‘self- 
“ ‘regulating  Classis’  or  Presbytery  can  or  may  do,  still  the 
“ whole  in  England  is  claimed  to  be  the  Presbytery  of 


41 


“ Amoy,  and  to  this  Synod  it  is  reported  as  the  Classis  of 
“ Amoy.” 

How  dreadful ! English  Presbyterians  call  the  body 
at  Amoy  a Presbytery , and  American  Dutchmen  call  it  a 
Classis  ! If  this  language  is  also  meant  to  imply  that  the 
Classis  at  Amoy  is  usurping  authority,  it  is  answered  in 
other  parts  of  this  paper. 

The  next  “ particular  ” of  the  Committee  is  : 

“ 2d.  Tiie  Missionaries,  while  they  are  members  of  this 
“ Grand  Presbyterial  or  Classical  Council,  exercising  full 
“ ministerial  functions  in  it,  are,  at  the  same  time,  members 
“ either  of  Classes  in  America,  or  of  Presbyteries  in  Great 
“ Britain.” 

The  meaning  of  this  second  “particular”  is,  that  the  Mis- 
sionaries have  a two-fold  ecclesiastical  relation.  Is  there 
anything  contrary  to  Scripture  doctrine,  or  to  Presbyterian 
principles,  or  to  common  sense,  that  ecclesiastical  relations 
should  correspond  to  fact'?- — that  the  Missionaries  should  have 
some  sort  of  an  ecclesiastical  relation,  both  to  the  Church  at 
home  and  to  the  Church  in  China  ? They  have  a peculiar 
relationship  to  both  these  Churches.  Why  forget  or  ignore 
the  fact  that  they  are  Evangelists  and  not  Pastors  ? Why 
object  to  an  ecclesiastical  relationship  exactly  corresponding 
to,  and  required  by,  their  office  and  position  ? The  two  parts 
of  this  relationship  do  not  contradict  each  other.  They  are 
altogether  correlative.  The  Missionaries  are  still  agents  of 
the  Church  which  sent  them  out.  Their  ecclesiastical  rela- 
tion to  it  should  be  direct,  that  they  may  be  controlled  by  it, 
independent  of  any  intermediate  body.  The  Church  at  home 
cannot  afford  to  cut  off  her  Missionaries  from  this  immediate 
relationship  so  long  as  they  remain  her  agents.  This  does 
not  conflict  with,  but  requires  some  sort  of  a corresponding 
relationship  to  the  Churches  planted  and  growing  up  through 


42 


their  instrumentality.  Their  relationship  to  those  Churches 
must  have  reference  especially  to  local  matters,  for  the  proper 
organization,  and  control,  and  development  of  the  native 
churches,  not  at  all  to  be  controlled  by  them.  When  they 
cease  to  be  agents  of  the  Church  at  home,  and  become  the 
proper  pastors  of  the  native  churches,  then  will  be  the  proper 
time  to  put  themselves  under  the  control  of  the  native 
churches,  instead  of  the  Church  at  home.  We  must  not  con- 
found evangelization  with  colonization.  Does  any  one  imagine 
that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and  Timothy  and  Titus,  or  any  of 
them  (for  they  were  not  all  apostles),  had  connection  with 
the  Church  which  sent  them  out,  only  through  the  churches 
and  ecclesiastical  bodies  organized  by  them  ? or  that  they 
were  in  any  sense  under  the  control  of  those  bodies? 

The  next  and  last  “ particular  ” of  the  Committee  is 
“3d.  That  while  the  Churches,  three  at  least,  are  organized 
“ under  and  according  to  the  Constitution  of  our  Church,  it 
“ is,  nevertheless,  claimed  that  the  members  of  said  Churches 
“ are  not  more  members  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  here, 
“ than  they  are  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Eng- 
“ land.” 

The  words  of  this  third  “particular”  are  almost  (not  quite) 
accurate.  Yet  they  appear  to  us  like  special  pleading.  They 
would  have  been  strictly  correct  if  they  had  run  as  follows : 
“ These  Churches  are  all  (why  say,  1 three  at  least '?)  organized 
“according  to  (not  1 under  ’--see  pages  28-30)  the  Constitu- 
tion of  our  Church.  Therefore  it  is  claimed  that  they  form 
“ a Church  of  our  order  in  China,  but  that  the  members 
“ thereof  arc  neither  members  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church 
“here,  nor  members  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  England.” 
Such  are  the  facts.  It  would  have  been  better  if  the  Com- 
mittee had  so  stated  them.  The  effort  is  now  made  to  divide 


43 


these  churches,  and  make  three  of  them  a part  of  the  Dutch 
Church  in  America. 

There  is  one  more  paragraph  in  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee which  demands  notice.  It  is: 

“ Your  Committee  can  easily  understand  how  reluctantly 
“ our  Missionaries  may  have  been,  or  may  still  be,  to  disturb, 
“ or  alter,  or  modify  the  relations  of  the  Churches  at  Amoy. 
“ But  they  conceive  it  to  be  their  duty  to  say  that  feeling 
“ should  never  be  allowed  to  take  the  place  of  conscience, 
“ nor  to  discharge  its  functions ; and  so  long  as  our  Mission- 
“ aries  claim  to  be  subordinate  to  the  authority  of  General 
“ Synod,  they  should  allow  this  body  to  assume  the  respon- 
“ sibility  of  its  chosen  and  deliberate  policy.” 

It  seems  to  us  the  Committee  are  not  much  more  fortunate 
on  the  subject  of  casuistry,  than  on  Church  “government” 
and  “ historic  facts.”  The  Missionaries  do  “ claim  to  be  sub- 
ordinate to  the  authority  of  General  Synod,”  but  they  also 
claim  to  be  subordinate  to  the  Supreme  authority.  Now  sup- 
pose—we  shall  not  be  charged  with  insubordination  for  the 
mere  supposition— suppose  the  Synod,  through  some  misap- 
prehension, should  directus  to  pursue  a course,  which,  after 
the  most  mature  reflection,  we  felt  to  be  injurious  to  the 
cause  of  Christ,  and  consequently  contrary  to  His  will — will 
the  fact  of  the  Synod  “ assuming  the  responsibility  ” clear 
our  skirts  ? Who  is  the  Lord  of  conscience  ? General 
Synod?  It  seems  to  us,  while  the  Committee  conceive  it  to 
be  their  duty  to  deliver  to  the  Missionaries  at  Amoy  a lecture 
on  the  importance  of  giving  heed  to  conscience,  in  the  very 
same  sentence  they  direct  us  to  hold  conscience  in  abeyance. 
But  where  did  the  Committee  learn  that  their  Missionaries 
were  influenced  by  feelings  and  not  by  conscience , and  that  too 
in  reference  to  the  laying  of  the  foundation  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  m such  an  empire  as  that  of  China ; that  they  felt 


44 


called  upon  in  this  solemn  manner  to  deliver  such  a lecture  ? 
Would  such  a reflection  have  been  cast  on  any  other  body  of 
ministers  in  our  Church  ? or  is  it  supposed  that  men  who 
give  themselves  to  the  work  of  preaching  the  gospel  in  hea- 
then lands  are  less  under  the  influence  of  conscience  than 
those  who  remain  at  home  ? They  conceived,  it  to  be  their 
duty  ! Was  it  ? 

So  much,  for  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Synod.  The 
decision  of  Synod  has  been  given,  as  stated  above.  The  im- 
portant question  now  is,  what  will  be  the  result  of  this 
decision  on  the  Church  at  Amoy?  This  question,  however, 
cannot  yet  be  answered  with  certainty,  for  we  cannot  yet 
even  guess  what  course  the  Missionaries  there,  when  they 
learn  the  decision  of  Synod,  will  feel  it  their  duty  to  pur- 
sue. There  may  be  more,  but  I can  now  only  think  of  three 
ways  open  before  them.  (1.)  To  ask  the  Board  to  recall  them. 
They  firmly  believe  that  their  course  of  proceeding,  in  organ- 
izing the  Church  at  Amoy,  is  not  only  in  accordance  with 
the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  also  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  our  Church.  To  be  the  instruments,  then,  of  divid- 
ing the  Church,  which  God  has  gathered  by  their  hands, 
may  be  to  sin  against  their  consciences.  They  may  there- 
fore ask  the  Board  to  appoint  other  agents  to  carry  out  the 
decision  of  Synod.  This  would  not  be  insubordination,  but 
perfect  subordination  both  to  the  authority  of  Synod  and 
also  to  that  authority  which  all  Protestant  Christians  acknowl- 
edge to  be  supreme.  This,  I suppose,  would  be  the  most- 
natural  course  for  the  brethren  to  take,  except  for  one  con- 
sideration ; that  is,  their  love  for  the  Churches  gathered  by 
them,  or  under  their  care,  and  their  responsibility  in  reference 
to  the  spiritual  welfare  of  those  disciples  of  the  Lord.  It 
would  be  the  severest  trial  they  have  ever  been  called  on  to 
endure  to  be  recalled  from  their  work.  Therefore  (2.)  They 


45 


may  delay  their  action.,  making  one  more  effort  to  get  their 
views  published,  hoping  that  the  Church  will  yet  change  her 
decision,  and  not  require  of  them  to  engage  in  a proceeding 
which  they  think  will  be  so  injurious  to  the  cause  of  Christ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  will  approve  of  the  course  heretofore 
adopted  by  them  as  altogether  scriptural,  and  the  true  doc- 
trine of  our  Church.  Or  (3.)  They  may  possibly,  after  mature 
reflection,  think  the  least  evil  will  be  to  carry  out  the  decision  of 
Synod,  although  that  decision  be  altogether  contrary  to  their 
own  judgment.  Then  they  will  take  three  of  the  six 
churches,  which  now  are  all  of  our  order,  and  organize  these 
three  a separate  Denomination  and  an  integral  part  of  the 
Church  in  America.  This  is  the  course  which  at  home  will 
be  generally  expected  of  them. 

Now  let  us  suppose  that  they  will  adopt  this  third  course, 
and  then  let  us  look  calmly  at  its  results — at  the  supposed  or 
real  advantages  thereof,  and  the  supposed  or  real  evils 
thereof. 

We  first  look  at  the  Advantages. 

1.  The  most  important  is,  or  is  supposed  to  be,  that  there 
will  thus  be  higher  courts  of  jurisdiction  to  which  appeals 
may  be  made,  and  by  which  orthodoxy  and  good  order  may 
be  the  better  secured  to  the  Church  at  Amoy.  Such  advan- 
tages, if  they  can  be  thus  secured,  we  would  by  no  means 
underrate.  There  sometimes  are  cases  of  appeal  for  which 
we  need  the  highest  court  practicable — the  collective  wisdom 
of  the  Church  so  flu-  as  it  can  be  obtained ; and  the  preserva- 
tion of  orthodoxy  and  good  order  is  of  the  first  importance. 
Nowr  let  us  see  whether  the  plan  proposed  will  secure  these 
advantages.  Let  us  suppose  that  one  of  the  brethren  feels 
himself  aggrieved  by  the  decision  of  the  Classis  of  Amoy,  and 
he  appeals  to  the  Particular  Synod  of  Albany,  and  thence  to 
the  General  Synod.  He  will  not  be  denied  the  right  to  such 


46 


appeal.  But,  in  order  that  the  appeal  may  be  properly  pro- 
secuted and  disposed  of,  the  appellant  and  the  representative 
of  Classis  should  be  present  in  these  higher  courts.  Can  this 
be  secured  ? Is  the  waste  of  time,  of  a year  or  more,  noth- 
ing? and  where  shall  the  thousands  of  dollars  of  necessary 
expense  come  from  ? Now  suppose  this  appellant  to  be  a 
Chinese  brother.  He  also  has  rights.  But  how,  on  this 
plan,  can  he  possibly  obtain  them  ? Suppose  (which  of  itself 
is  an  absurdity)  that  the  money  be  raised  for  him,  and  he  is 
permitted  to  stand  on  the  floor  of  Synod.  He  cannot  speak, 
read,  or  write  a word  of  English.  Not  a member  of  Synod 
can  speak,  read,  or  write  a word  of  his  language,  except  it  be 
the  brother  prosecuting  him.  I ask,  is  it  possible  for  him  thus 
to  obtain  justice  ? But,  waiving  all  these  disadvantages,  the 
only  points  on  which  there  is  the  least  probability  that  an 
appeal  of  a Chinese  brother  would  come  up  before  the  higher 
courts,  are  points  on  which  these  higher  courts  would  not  be 
qualified  to  decide.  They  would  doubtless  grow  out  of  the 
peculiar  customs  and  laws  of  the  Chinese — points  on  which 
the  Missionary,  after  he  has  been  on  the  ground  a dozen 
years,  often  feels  unwilling  to  decide,  and  takes  the  opinion 
of  the  native  elders  in  preference  to  his  own.  Is  it  right  to 
impose  a yoke  like  this  on  that  little  Church  which  God  is 
gathering  by  your  instrumentality  in  that  far-off  land  of 
China  ? But  it  is  said,  that  these  cases  of  appeal  (because  of 
impracticability)  will  very  rarely  or  never  happen.  Be  it  so  ; 
then  this  supposed  advantage  will  seldom  or  never  occur,  and 
if  it  should  occur,  it  would  prove  a disadvantage.  The  high- 
est practical  court  of  appeal  for  the  native  churches  can  be 
-secured  only  on  the  plan  for  which  the  Missionaries  contend. 
Why  must  we  deprive  the  native  Christians  of  the  benefit  of 
the  collective  wisdom  of  all  the  churches  of  like  doctrine  and 
order  among  them  ? 


47 


As  regards  orthodoxy  and  good  order,  it  is  incumbent  on 
the  Church  at  home  to  use  her  utmost  endeavors  to  secure 
these.  Doubtless  this  was  the  great  design  of  Synod,  both 
in  the  action  of  1S57  and  in  the  action  of  I SG3.  But  will  the 
plan  of  Synod  give  us  any  greater  security  for  these  tilings  ? 
How  can  they  be  secured  ? We  answer,  under  God,  only 
through  your  Missionaries.  The  greater  your  hold  on  your 
Missionaries,  the  better  security  for  the  churches  under  their 
care.  The  plan  of  Synod  would  place  your  Missionaries 
ecclesiastically . almost  beyond  your  control.  They  must  be 
dismissed  from  the  various  Classes  in  this  country,  and, 
together  with  the  native  churches  under  their  care,  form 
themselves  into  a Chinese  Classis.  Either  they  will  have  a 
controlling  influence  over  the  native  portion  of  this  Classis  or 
they  will  not.  If  they  have,  then  your  only  way  to  discipline 
them  will  be  to  discipline  their  Classis.  It  would  be  a new 
doctrine  in  our  Church,  to  make  the  Board  of  Foreign  Mis- 
sions an  ecclesiastical  medium  between  the  Synod  and  one  of 
its  Classes,  or  to  enforce  discipline  over  the  ministry  by  the 
money  rod.  The  Classis,  as  such,  must  be  disciplined  by  the 
direct  act  of  Synod.  Or,  suppose  the  Missionaries  do  not 
have  such  controlling  influence  over  the  native  members  of 
Classis,  for  the  native  members  will  outnumber,  and,  unless 
the  action  of  Synod  (as  we  greatly  fear)  seriously  retard  the 
work  at  Amoy,  will  very  soon  greatly  outnumber  the  Mis- 
sionaries. What  then  ? Your  Missionaries  are  under  the 
ecclesiastical  control  of  the  native  converts.  Their  doctrines 
and  morals  are  to  be  decided  on  by  a court  composed  mainly 
of  recent  converts  from  heathenism.  The  only  way  to  bring 
them  before  the  higher  courts  in  this  country,  is  through  this 
native  court,  as  we  have  already  seen,  almost  an  impossibility. 
Is  it  not  plain  that  the  Church  at  home  will  not  thus  have  a 
moiety  of  the  control  over  her  Missionaries  she  now  has  ? Is 


48 


this  the  way  to  keep  the  Church  at  Amoy  sound  and  pure  ? 
It  seems  to  be  supposed  by  some  that  the  Missionaries  desire 
to  be  separated  from  the  control  of  the  Church  at  home. 
This  is  altogether  a mistake,  and  another  result  of  withhold- 
ing their  views  from  the  public.  They  have  no  such  desire. 
The  contrary  is  altogether  the  fact.  They  do  not  desire  to 
be  placed  under  the  control  of  the  native  Chinese  churches. 
They  did  not  derive  their  authority  from  those  churches,  they 
are  not  sustained  by  them,  and  they  are  in  no  sense  their 
agents,  but  they  derive  their  authority  through,  are  sustained 
by,  and  are  altogether  the  agents  of  the  Church  in  this  coun- 
try ; therefore  the  Church  at  home  has  and  should  retain 
control  over  them.  They  are  amenable  to  the  Church  at 
home,  through  their  several  Classes.  These  are  the  only 
courts  qualified  to  take  cognizance  of  their  doctrines  and 
morals.  They  desire  to  remain  in  this  relation.  We  think 
they  have  a right  to  demand  this,  until  such  time  as  they  be- 
come agents  of  the  Church  in  China,  instead  of  the  Church  in 
America. 

Suppose  by  some  means  suspicion  should  arise  at  home 
concerning  the  orthodoxy  or  morality  of  one  or  more  of  your 
Missionaries.  On  the  plan  proposed,  what  can  the  Church 
do  with  them  ? May  the  Board  of  Missions,  on  mere  report 
or  suspicion,  recall  them  without  giving  them  a proper  trial  ? 
Can  the  Board  try  them  ? No.  It  is  not  an  ecclesiastical 
court.  Will  the  Church  be  satisfied  with  the  decision  of  a 
court,  a majority  of  whose  members  have  recently  been  con- 
verted from  heathenism  through  the  instrumentality  of  these 
very  Missionaries  ? But  continue  the  plan  of  the  Missionaries 
and  all  will  be  simple.  If  any  of  the  Missionaries 
give  occasion  for  suspicion,  let  them  be  tried  by  their  proper 
Classes  in  this  country.  This  is  all  that  the  Church  at  home 
can  do  ecclesiastically  towards  keeping  the  Church  pure  in 


49 


China.  Whether  the  proposed  nominal  union  he  con- 
summated or  not,  the  only  hold  you  will  have  on  the  Chinese 
churches  will  be  through  your  Missionaries.  If  they  will 
not  receive  the  instructions,  and  listen  to  the  advice  of  your 
Missionaries  and  of  the  Synod  through  them,  you  would  not 
expect  them  to  obey  the  injunctions  of  Synod.  Your  only 
other  resort  will  be  to  withhold  from  them  help.  Can  you 
not  do  the  same  now  ? 

But  in  all  this  discussion,  I fear,  we  lose  sight  too  much 
of  our  dependence  on  the  Head  of  the  Church  to  keep  His 
Church  pure.  Sure  I am  that  the  Church  in  China  cannot 
be  kept  pure  by  legislation  on  this,  the  opposite  side  of  the 
globe.  But  we  expect  Christ  to  reign  over,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  given  to  the  churches,  and  the  proper  ecclesias- 
tical bodies  formed  of  them  in  China  as  well  as  in  this  land. 
Why  not  ? Such  are  the  promises  of  God.  The  way  to 
secure  these  things  is  by  prayer,  and  the  preaching  of  the  pure 
gospel,  not  by  legislation.  Let  the  Church  be  careful  in  her 
selection  of  Missionaries.  Send  only  such  as  she  has  confi- 
dence in — men  of  God,  sound  in  the  faith,  apt  to  teach — and 
then  trust  them,  or  recall  them.  Don’t  attempt  to  control 
them  contrary  to  their  judgment.  Strange  if  this,  which  is 
so  much  insisted  on  as  the  policy  of  our  Church,  be  right, 
that  she  cannot  get  a single  man,  of  all  she  sends  out  to 
China,  to  think  so.  Can  it  be  that  the  Missionary  work  is  so 
subversive  of  right  reason,  or  of  correct  judgment,  or  of 
conscientiousness,  that  all  become  perverted  by  engaging 
in  it  ? 

2.  Another  supposed  advantage  is  the  effect  it  will  have  in 
enlisting  the  sympathies  of  the  Church  in  behalf  of  the  Mis- 
sion at  Amoy.  It  is  said,  tell  the  Church  that  we  have  a 
flourishing  Classis  at  Amoy,  a part  of  ourselves,  connected 
4 


50 


with  General  Synod,  just  like  all  the  other  Classes  of  our 
Church,  the  effect  will  be  wonderful  in  enlisting  sympathy, 
money,  and  men  in  behalf  of  that  Mission  ; otherwise  the 
opposite  evil  must  be  apprehended.  If  these  things  be  so, 
they  are  indeed  of  grave  importance.  The  Mission  in  China 
cannot  live  without  the  sympathy  of  the  Church  at  home. 
But  are  these  things  so  ? It  seems  to  us  that  the  supposition 
takes  for  granted  that  our  Church  in  its  Missionary  work  is 
influenced  by  a desire  for  self-glory,  or  self-gratification  ; or, 
at  least,  that  she  is  not  a Church  of  liberal  views — that  she 
is  not  at  all  to  be  compared,  in  this  respect,  with  the  English 
Presbyterian  Church,  or  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland. 
Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  the  liberality  of  the 
English  Presbyterian  Church.  I may  now  also  remark  that 
a large  amount  of  the  funds  for  carrying  on  the  work  at  Amoy 
is  raised  in  Scotland  from  members  of  the  Free  Church.  They 
never  had  any  idea  that  the  churches  gathered  in  China  were 
to  be  a part  of  their  own  Church.  They  do  not  even  ask 
that  they  be  a part  of  their  sister  Church  in  England.  They  only 
ask  that  they  shall  be  sound  in  the  faith  and  hold  to  the  essen- 
tials of  Presbyterianism,  even  though  they  have  some  charac- 
teristics peculiar  to  the  Dutch  and  other  Reformed  Churches. 
These  Presbyterian  brethren  in  England  and  Scotland  are 
not  only  ready  to  support  their  own  Missionaries  in  their 
work  of  building  up  the  churches  under  their  especial  care, 
but  they  stand  ready  to  assist  the  Missionaries  of  our  Church 
in  building  up  the  churches  under  our  especial  care.  Of 
their  frequent  offers  to  assist  us,  when  they  feared  we  should 
be  in  want  of  funds,  our  Board  can  bear  testimony.  We  are 
not  yet  willing  to  believe  that  our  people  are  a people  of 
narrow  views  in  a matter  like  this.  It  is  contrary  to  our  his- 
tory in  time  past.  It  is  contrary  to  the  facts  of  the  present 
day.  It  is  contrary  to  all  my  observation  among  our  churches. 


51 


Our  people  do  not  first  ask  whether  it  be  building  ourselves 
up,  before  they  sympathize  with  a benevolent  object.  We 
believe  the  contrary  is  the  exact  truth.  It  requires  a liberal 
policy  to  call  forth  liberal  views  and  action.  As  regards 
the  enlisting  of  men,  look  at  the  facts.  Every  man  who  has 
gone  out  from  among  you,  to  engage  in  this  Missionary 
work,  begs  of  you  not  to  adopt  a narrow  policy.  So  in  re- 
gard to  obtaining  of  funds.  Usually,  the  men  who  are  most 
liberal  in  giving  are  most  liberal  in  feeling.  This  must  be 
so  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  The  way  to  alienate  the 
sympathies  of  the  Church  from  the  Mission  at  Amoy  is  to 
divide  the  Church  there  by  a sectarian  policy ; and  the 
way  to  enlist  her  sympathies  is  to  continue  the  former  plan, 
and  let  the  work  go  forward  with  the  Divine  blessing  as  in 
days  past.  The  people  will  be  more  encouraged,  and  praise 
God  more  heartily,  when  you  tell  them  of  six  organized 
churches  like  our  own,  and  many  others  growing  up  all 
around,  than  they  will  if  you  tell  them  of  only  three  churches, 
and  only  a few  out-stations,  under  our  care.  They  will  not 
object  to  hear  that  the  English  Presbyterian  brethren  are 
laboring  with  us,  and  organizing  churches  so  nearly  like  our 
own.  However  powerful  the  motive  addressed  to  the  de- 
sire to  build  up  our  own  Church,  there  are  motives  infinitely 
more  powerful.  Such  are  the  motives  to  be  depended  on  in 
endeavoring  to  elevate  the  standard  of  liberality  among  our 
people. 

Let  brethren  in  the  Ministry  try  the  experiment,  and 
tell  their  people  of  the  wonders  of  God’s  grace  : — that  he  has 
led  his  servants  from  our  own  Church  in  this  land,  and  from 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Great  Britain,  in  their  work  of 
evangelizing  the  heathen,  and  laying  the  foundation  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  to  lay  aside  all  national  animosities,  and 
rise  above  all  denominational  prejudices  and  jealousies — that 


52 


lie  has  given  to  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  England,  and  the 
sister  Church  in  Scotland,  a spirit  of  catholicity  and  liberality 
as  exhibited  in  the  previous  part  of  this  paper — and  that,  as 
a consequence,  he  is  causing  his  Church  to  grow  up  in  the 
region  of  Amoy  in  beautiful  proportions,  all  the  congrega- 
tions under  their  care  and  ours  also  manifesting;  the  same 
spirit  of  catholicity  and  liberality,  submitting  to  each  other 
according  to  the  Divine  command,  working  together  with 
the  utmost  harmony,  and,  as  a consequence,  with  wonderful 
effectiveness.  Can  you  account  for  such  things  except  by 
the  energy  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ? Surely  it  is  not  the  spirit 
of  the  world,  neither  is  it  the  spirit  of  the  devil.  Try  the 
experiment,  then,  and  see  whether  the  wonders  of  God’s 
grace  will  alienate  the  hearts  of  his  people.  Your  Mission- 
aries have  no  doubt — we  can  hardly  understand  how  any 
who  examine  the  subject  can  doubt— we  are  sure  that  no 
one  can  personally  behold  the  work  and  yet  doubt,  that  the 
wonderful  blessing  of  God,  which  lias  accompanied  the 
work  at  Amoy,  has  been  both  the  cause  and  the  result  of 
this  harmonious  labor  on  the  part  of  your  Missionaries,  and 
those  from  the  sister  Churches  in  England  and  Scotland. 
Therefore,  we  feel  assured  that  the  simple  recital  of  the  grace 
of  God  thus  manifested,  must  influence  the  hearts  of  his  peo- 
ple most  powerfully,  and  therefore  it  is  that  we  beseech  the 
Church  not  to  interfere  with,  and  hinder  the  work  of  God. 
May  we  not  refer,  without  being  charged  with  disrespect,  to 
the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  as  a proper  example  for  our  General 
Synod  ? Peter  says,  “ Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a yoke 
upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples,  which  neither  we  nor  our 
fathers  were  able  to  bear  ?”  And  then  the  decree,  which  the 
Synod  sent  to  the  Churches,  runs  thus : “ It  seemed  good  to 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us,  to  lay  upon  3mu  no  greater  bur- 
den than  these  necessary  things.”  The  ecclesiastical  “ power 


53 


which  the  Lord  hath  given  ” to  his  Church  is  “ to  edification , 
and  not  to  destruction .” 

If  the  Missionaries  be  allowed  to  proceed  in  building  up  a 
Church,  like  our  own,  simply  with  reference  to  the  evangeli- 
zation of  China,  doubtless  brethren  in  the  ministry,  and  other 
influential  men,  could  take  occasion  therefrom  to  prejudice 
the  Churches  against  our  work.  They  could  do  this,  it  they 
were  so  disposed,  without  any  such  occasion.  But  will  they 
doit?  We  cannot  believe  that  they  will.  They  love  the 
cause  of  Christ  too  well,  and  desire  to  see  the  wrorld  con- 
verted to  God  too  ardently,  to  permit  them  to  throw  any 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  our  work,  even  though  that  work  be  not 
carried  forward  in  the  manner  which  they  consider  altoge- 
ther the  best.  If  we  are  right,  these  brethren  will  soon  see 
that  we  are  right,  and  however  powerful  the  motive  to  be 
addressed  to  the  desire  of  extending  our  own  Church,  they 
will  find  infinitely  more  powerful  motives  to  be  addressed  to 
a more  noble  desire  of  the  Christian  heart.  If  our  people 
have  not  yet  learned,  they  should  be  taught  to  engage  in  the 
work  of  evangelizing  the  world,  not  for  the  sake  of  our 
Church  in  America,  but  for  the  sake  of  Christ  and  His 
Church,  and  when  the  Church  thus  built  up  is  like  our  own, 
they  should  be  fully  satisfied.  We  believe  they  will  be  satis- 
fied with  this. 

3.  The  only  other  supposed  advantage  I can  now  think  of, 
is  the  advantage  of  carrying  out  the  'policy  of  our  Church. 
This,  in  itself  considered,  might  be  regarded  worthy  of  but 
little  attention.  Cannot — ought  not — the  Church  change  her 
policy  if  wrong,  or  if  a better  can  be  adopted?  Surely  her 
laws  are  not  like  those  of  the  Medes  and  Persians.  But  the 
argument  has  been  used  with  so  much  earnestness  and  perse- 
verance, both  in  the  Reports  of  the  Committees  and  in  the 
discussions  in  Synod,  that  it  demands  some  investigation. 


54 


Inst.’ad  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  Missionaries  being,  as  it 
is  contended,  contrary  to,  it  is  the  true  policy  of  our  Church— 
the  policy  in  existence  long  before  the  decision  of  1S57.  If 
the  course  now  required  of  them  be  the  present  policy  of  our 
Church,  it  is  a mistaken  policy,  contrary  to  the  very  genius  of 
our  institutions,  and  ought  to  be  corrected.  It  is  so  contrary 
to  our  time-honored  Constitution  that  either  it  or  the  Consti- 
tution must  be  sacrificed.  In  order  to  save  the  policy  it  was 
found  necessary  during  the  past  year  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion by  a clause  so  sweeping,  that  if  the  circumstances  of  a 
Missionary  Classis  require  it,  “ all  the  ordinary  requirements  of 
the  Constitution ” may  be  dispensed  with  by  the  General  Synod. 
Can  it  be  that  a policy  which  requires  such  constitutional 
changes  can  be  the  old  and  proper  policy  of  our  Church  ? But 
if  the  policy  be  continued  we  are  not  yet  done  with  changes. 
The  very  name  of  our  Church  must  be  changed.  It  now  is 
“ The  Reformed  Protestant  Dutch  Church  in  North  America .” 
We  must  expunge  the  words  u in  North  America or  must  add 
India,  China,  and  Japan,  and  every  other  country  where  the 
Church  may  undertake  Missionary  work.  We  know  it  has  been 
said  of  this  policy,  “it  is  our  settled , irreversible  policy.”  Is  every, 
thing  then  to  be  regarded  as  unsettled  and  changeable  but  this  po- 
licy of  the  Church  ? We  answer,  No.  The  Church  may  change 
her  name,  if  she  please,  as  she  has  changed  her  Constitution. 
Or  she  may  change  her  policy.  But  there  are  certain  funda- 
mental principles  of  Church  government  which  she  may  not 
change.  Hence,  even  yet,  the  principles  for  which  the  Mis- 
sionaries contend  must  remain  the  true  policy  of  our  Church, 
for  they  lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  Presbyterial  order.  A full 
discussion  of  this  subject  will  come  up  most  naturally  when 
we  discuss  the  evils  of  the  course  now  required  of  us.  I 
will  now  allude  to  only  one  fact.  The  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions  was  formed  on  this  principle.  If  the  Classes  at 


Arcot  and  Amoy  are  ,to  be  considered  integral  parts  of 
the  Church  in  this  country,  related  to  General  Synod 
like  the  Classes  in  this  country,  then  the  Missionaries 
at  those  stations  properly  should  come  under  the  Board  of 
Domestic  Missions.  Suppose,  according  to  the  new  plan, 
the  Missionaries  form  themselves  into  the  kind  of  Chassis  now 
required  of  them  ; what  will  be  the  relation  of  the  Chassis  of 
Amoy  to  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions?  Is  the  Chassis,  in 
evangelizing  the  heathen  around,  to  operate  through  the 
Board,  or  the  Board  through  the  Classis  ? The  Chassis  at 
Amoy  decide  on  a certain  course  of  ecclesiastical  procedure, 
or  evangelistic  labor,  and  the  Board  decides  on  another 
course  ; how  is  such  a matter  to  be  settled  ? Will  it  be  said, 
there  is  no  danger  of  such  difficulty  ? The  Classis  and 
Board  will  both  be  composed  of  men  with  infirmities.  Ask 
the  Board  whether  there  have  not  already  been  incipient 
difficulties,  in  the  supposed  clashing  of  the  powers  of  the 
Board  and  the  powers  of  the  Chassis  of  Arcot.  But  the 
Classis  of  Arcot  as  yet  is  little  more  than  an  American  Mis- 
sionary Classis.  What  will  be  the  difficulties  when  it 
becomes  an  Indian  Classis  ? But  wTe  are  told,  “ keep  the  Mis- 
sion and  Classis  distinct.”  Is  the  Mission,  then,  to  attend  to 
all  the  evangelistic  work,  and  the  Classis  to  do  nothing? 
Or  are  there  to  be  two  distinct  evangelistic  policies  carried 
on  at  Amoy,  the  one  by  the  Mission,  and  the  other  by  the 
Classis?  Or  is  the  Classis  first  to  come  over  to  the  Synod, 
and  so  get  to  the  Board  in  order  to  carry  on  the  work 
around  ? Instead  of  this  new  plan  being  the  settled  policy 
of  our  Church,  we  believe  it  to  be  a solecism.  When  a 
Church  is  established  among  the  heathen  after  our  order, 
then  is  the  true  policy  of  our  Church  carried  out.  Let  the 
present  relations  of  the  Missionaries  to  the  Board  and  to 
their  several  Classes  remain,  and  there  will  be  no  occasion  for 


56 


the  clashing  of  the  powers  of  the  Board  with  those  of  any 
ecclesiastical  body. 

So  much  for  the  advantages.  They  are  really  disadvan- 
tages, leading  to  serious  evils , which  of  themselves  should  be 
sufficient  to  deter  the  Church  from  inaugurating  the  policy 
proposed,  or,  if  it  be  already  inaugurated,  to  lead  her  to 
retrace  her  steps,  and  adopt  a better  and  a consistent 
policy. 

Now  let  us  consider  the  real  or  supposed  Evils  (in  addi- 
tion to  the  above)  of  carrying  out  the  decision  of  Synod. 

1.  It  will  not  be  for  the  credit  of  our  Church.  She  now 
has  a name,  with  other  Churches,  for  putting  forth  efforts  to 
evangelize  the  world.  Shall  she  mar  this  good  name  and 
acquire  one  for  sectarianism,  by  putting  forth  efforts  to 
extend  herself,  not  her  doctrines  and  order  ; — they  are  not 
sectarian,  and  her  Missionaries  esteem  them  as  highly  as  do 
their  brethren  at  home — -but  herself,  even  at  the  cost  of  divid- 
ing churches  which  the  grace  of  God  has  made  one  ? 

The  decision  of  the  last  Synod  may  not  be  the  result 
of  sectarianism  among  the  people  of  our  Church.  We  do 
not  think  it  is.  But  it  will  be  difficult  to  convince  our 
Presbyterian  brethren  and  others,  that  it  is  not  so.  By  way 
of  illustration  I will  suppose  a case.  A.  is  engaged  in  a 
very  excellent  work.  B.  comes  to  him,  and  the  following 
dialogue  ensues  : 

B.  “ Friend  A.,  I am  glad  to  see  you  engaged  in  so  ex- 
cellent a work.  I also  have  concluded  to  engage  in  it.  I 
should  be  glad  to  work  with  you.  You  know  the  proverbs, 
‘ Union  is  strength,’  and  ‘ Two  are  better  than  one.’  ” 

A.  “ lres,  yes,  friend  B,  I know  these  proverbs  and 
believe  them  as  thoroughly  as  you  do.  But  I have  a few 
peculiarities  about  my  way  of  working.  They  are  not  many, 


57 


and  they  are  not  essential,  bnt  I think  they  are  useful,  and 
wish  to  work  according  to  them.  Therefore,  I prefer  work- 
ing alone.” 

B.  “Yes,  friend  A.,  we  all  have  our  peculiarities,  and,  if 
they  be  not  carried  too  far,  they  may  all  be  made  useful.  I 
have  been  making  inquiries  about  yours,  and  I am  glad  to 
find  they  are  not  nearly  so  many,  or  so  different  from  mine, 
as  you  seem  to  suppose,  and  as  I once  supposed.  The  fact 
is,  I rather  like  some  of  them,  and,  though  I may  not  esteem 
them  all  so  highly  as  you  do,  still  I am  willing  to  conform  to 
them  ; for  I am  fully  persuaded  that,  in  work  of  this  kind, 
two  working  together  can  do  vastly  more  than  two  working 
separately,  and  the  work  will  be  much  better  done.  Besides 
this,  the  social  intercourse  will  be  delightful.” 

A.  “ I appreciate,  friend  B.,  your  politeness,  and  am  well 
aware  that  all  you  say  about  the  greater  efficiency  and 
excellence  of  united  work,  and  the  delights  of  social  inter- 
course is  perfectly  true.  But — but — well,  I prefer  to  work 
alone.” 

2.  It  will  be  destroying  a real  unity  for  the  sake  of  creat- 
ing one,  which,  at  the  best,  can  be  only  nominal , and  hence 
will  really  be  a violation  of  Presbyterial  order.  It  seems 
strange  to  us  that  it  should  be  constantly  asserted  that  we 
are  striving  to  create  a formal  union  between  two  bodies 
which  are  essentially  distinct.  There  is  nothing  of  the  kind. 
There  are  six  organized  churches  at  Amoy.  They  are  all 
Dutch  (i.  e.  Reformed),  and  they  are  all  Presbyterian,  for 
the  Dutch  Churches  are  all  Presbyterian.  But  they  are 
Chinese,  not  American,  nor  English,  nor  Scotch.  If  these 
churches  are  not  one , then  it  is  impossible  for  two  or  more 
individual  churches  to  be  one.  If  schism  in  a Church  be  a 
sin,  then  the  separation  of  this  Church  will  be  a sin,  for  it 


58 


will  be  an  actual  schism.  You  can  make  nothing  more  nor 
less  of  it.  If  you  say  that  schism  is  only  an  evil,  then  the 
separation  of  this  Church  will,  at  least,  be  an  evil. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  thought  that  schism  is  too  hard  a term 
whereby  to  designate  the  separation  of  the  Church  at  Amoy. 
Never  mind  the  word,  then,  but  let  us  look  at  the  facts. 
The  proper  Classis  of  Amoy,  composed  of  all  the  churches 
of  like  order,  and  of  the  Missionaries,  has  proceeded,  accord- 
ing to  the  order  of  our  Church,  to  ordain  and  install  native 
pastors,  and  to  perform  a few  other  necessary  ecclesiastical 
acts.  These  pastors  are  now  called  on  to  separate  from,  and 
break  up  that  body, through  which  they  received  their  office! 
The  opinions  and  wishes  of  these  native  pastors,  as  well  of 
the  native  Classis,  and  the  native  churches,  are  all  ignored  ! 
Are  such  things  right '?  Are  these  the  doctrines  or  policy  of 
the  Dutch  Church  ? We  are  told  that  we  need  say  nothing 
to  the  native  churches  on  the  subject.  Is  this  right  ? Is 
the  Dutch  Church  a hierarchy  ? Does  the  General  Synod 
claim  authority  to  order  the  division  in  such  a manner  of  a 
Classis  of  the  Church  of  Christ  without  the  consent  of  that 
Classis?  “ What  God  hath  joined  together  let  not  man  put 
asunder .” 

In  consequence  of  fallen  humanity,  there  are  evils  which 
we  call  necessary  evils.  Such  is  the  case  of  different  Denom- 
inations of  Christians  in  the  same  region  of  territory.  They 
differ  in  sentiment  on  important  (or  supposed  to  be  impor- 
tant) subjects,  and  because  of  this  difference  in  sentiment, 
they  can  work  together  in  greater  harmony,  and  with  greater 
efficiency,  by  being  formed  into  distinct  organizations.  Such, 
however,  is  not  the  case  of  the  six  churches  at  Amoj",  and 
others  growing  up  under  their  care  and  the  care  of  your  own 
and  the  English  Presbyterian  Missionaries.  Even  when 
Churches  agree  in  doctrine  and  order,  it  is  sometimes  better, 


59 


and  sometimes  necessary,  in  consequence  of  geographical 
separation  or  national  distinctions,  to  form  distinct  organiza- 
tions. It  is  better,  or  necessary,  that  the  Churches  in  Hol- 
land, and  America,  and  South  Africa,  be  ecclesiastically  dis- 
tinct. We  do  not  call  this  an  evil,  for  all  the  advantages  of 
ecclesiastical  courts  and  control  are  better  thus  secured. 
But  suppose  a case.  There  are,  say,  thirty  Dutch  churches 
in  the  city  of  New  York.  Now,  suppose  there  were  no  others 
of  the  same  order  throughout  this  whole  land : instead  of  al- 
lowing these  churches  to  remain  one  organic  whole— form- 
ing Classes  and  Synods,  as  the  growth  and  convenience  may 
allow  and  direct— it  is  proposed  to  take  one-half  of  these 
churches,  form  them  into  a distinct  organization,  thus  depriv- 
ing them  of  ecclesiastical  relations  to  the  other  half,  and 
attach  them  to  an  ecclesiastical  body  in  China — a nation  of 
different  customs  and  different  language.  How  should  we 
designate  such  an  act?  The  first  part  would  be  schism,  and 
the  last  part  would  be  folly.  The  only  difference  between 
such  a procedure  and  that  required  of  us  is,  that  the 
churches  at  Amoy  have  been  gathered  partly  by  our  instru- 
mentality, and  are  dependent  partly  on  us  for  instruction. 
If  our  Presbyterial  order  be  scriptural,  all  these  churches  at 
Amoy,  growing  out  of  each  other,  are  bound  to  associate 
together,  ecclesiastically.  It  is  their  duty  to  submit  to  each 
other.  They  would  also  be  bound  to  submit  to  the  Church 
of  the  same  order  in  England  and  America,  and  every  other 
country  throughout  the  world,  if  it  were  possible  and  conve- 
nient. But  such  relation  is  not  convenient,  or  possible. 
Therefore,  we  must  choose  that  which  is  possible  and  most 
convenient.  It  is  possible,  and  it  is  convenient,  that  they 
associate  together.  It  is  not  possible  that  they  all  be  subject 
to  the  Church  in  England,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  the 
Church  in  America.  It  is  not  convenient  that  they  all  be 


60 


subject  to  either  of  these  Churches.  We  do  not  think  it  is 
convenient  that  one-half  of  them  be  subject  to  either  of  these 
Churches.  Besides  the  sin,  or  evil,  of  schism,  they  never  can  be 
properly  represented  in  the  higher  ecclesiastical  bodies  of  either 
of  these  Churches.  They  never  can  have  an  Elder  present  (I 
speak  now  of  their  connection  with  the  Church  in  America, 
for  this  is  the  subject  before  us).  They  never  can  have  a full 
representation  of  ministers.  Only  very  seldom  can  they  have 
even  one  minister  present.  He  usually  wTill  only  be  one  who 
is  ill,  and  consequently  not  a proper  representative.  The 
native  element,  i.  e.,  the  chief  clement  of  the  Church  can  never 
be  represented  at  all.  The  representation,  at  the  best,  will 
only  be  a representation  of  your  Missionaries,  not  at  all  of  the 
Chinese  Church.  Therefore,  we  assert  that  such  a union 
wrnuld  not  be  real,  not  even  apparent,  only  nominal.  In  striv- 
ing after  it,  we  are  pursuing  a chimera,  destroying  a substance 
for  the  sake  of  a shadow. 

But  it  is  offered  as  an  objection  to  our  views,  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church  (0.  S.)  has  Presbyteries  and  Synods  in 
India  and  China.  Yes,  they  have  three  Presbyteries  and 
a Synod  in  India,  and  have  had  for  twenty  years.  But  even 
yet  there  is  not  so  much  of  a native  element  in  their  whole 
Synod  as  there  is  already  in  the  little  Church  in  the  region  of 
Amoy.  As  an  ecclesiastical  body,  it  is  not  Indian  in  its 
characteristics — it  is  American.  So  with  all  their  Presbyte- 
ries in  Siam  and  China,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the 
Presbytery  at  Ningpo.  They  are  American  Presbyteries,  not 
native  in  their  character.* 

* The  following  statistics  are  from  the  Minutes  of  General  Assembly,  1863. 

Synod  of  Northern  India — Was  organized  in  1841.  Is  composed  of  three  Pres- 
byteries. Now  lias  19  ministers  (only  one  of  these  is  a native  pastor) ; 9 churches ; 
246  communicants.  (How  many  of  these  are  natives  not  reported.) 

Presbytery  of  Canton — Has  4 ministers  ; no  native  pastor  ; 1 church  ; 12  com- 
municants. (How  many  of  these  are  natives  not  reported.) 


G1 


So  is  the  Chassis  of  Arcot  appealed  to.  Such  appeals  put 
us  in  a somewhat  painful  position.  As  with  the  Presbyte- 
rian bodies  just  mentioned,  so  with  the  Classis  of  Arcot.  We 
have  no  rivalry  with  the  brethren  there,  and  do  not  wish  to 
say  a word  that  looks  like  stricture  on  their  policy.  We  do 
not  utter  a word  of  this  kind,  except  in  self-defense.  We 
rejoice  in  all  their  successes.  But  the  time  will  come,  if  the 
blessing  of  God  continues  to  follow  their  labors,  when  they 
will  be  compelled  to  adopt  our  principles.  The  Missionaries 
at  Arcot  are  not  properly  pastors  of  the  native  churches. 
They  exercise  the  pastoral  office  only  temporarily,  until  na- 
tive pastors  are  raised  up.  Their  relation  to  the  Synods  in 
this  country  is  not  like  that  of  the  other  Classes  of  our  Church. 
They  never  have  had  and  never  will  have  a proper  represen- 
tation in  these  higher  eourtst  They  have  never  had  a native 

Presbytery  of  Ningpo — Has  8 ministers  ; no  native  pastor;  2 churches;  111 
native  members. 

Presbytery  of  Siam — Has  6 ministers  ; no  native  pastor  ; 1 church  ; 8 communi- 
cants. (How  many  of  these  are  native  members  not  reported.) 

Presbytery  of  West  Africa — Has  9 ministers  ; no  native  pastor  ; 6 churches  ; 191 
communicants  (probably  all  natives.) 

Are  these  ecclesiastical  bodies  respectively  Indian,  Chinese,  and  African  in 
their  character  ? or  are  they  all  essentially  American  ? Yet  these  are  the  bodies  to 
which  the  Committee  of  General  Synod  of  1857  referred  when  they  said,  “ As  to 
the  difficulties  suggested  ” [by  the  Missionaries  at  Amoy]  “respecting  the  de- 
lays of  carrying  out  a system  of  appellate  jurisdiction  covering  America  and 
China,  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  (0.  S.)  finds  no  insu- 
perable difficulties  in  carrying  into  operation  her  system,  which  comprehends 
Presbyteries  and  Synods  in  India  as  well  as  here.”  Why  should  there  be  many 
insuperable  difficulties  so  long  as  these  bodies  remain  American  Missionary  bodies , 
instead  of  being  native  ecclesiastical  bodies  ? Practically  they  do  not  need  represen- 
tation in  the  Church  at  home  more  than  our  Missions  need  representatives  in  the 
Board  of  Missions.  In  the  aggregate  of  all  the  above-mentioned  ecclesiastical 
missionary  bodies,  there  is  but  one  native  pastor,  and  this,  as  might  be  expected,  so 
far  as  we  are  aware,  furnished  the  only  case  in  which  difficulty  has  occurred. 
Doubtless  in  the  instance  referred  to,  the  native  pastor  was  in  error,  and,  as  he 
found  some  insuperable  difficulty  in  getting  his  case  before  the  General  Assembly, 
a similar  effort  is  not  likely  soon  to  be  made. 


G2 


elder  present.  They  never  have  even  a partial  representa- 
tion of  ministers,  except  under  the  afflictive  dispensations  of 
Providence.  For  several  years  past  they  would  have  been 
without  any  representation  at  all,  hut  for  the  fact  of  one  of 
their  number  being  in  this  country  whose  ill  health  forbids 
his  return  to  that  field  of  labor.  It  is  by  being  unfitted  to 
be  a member  of  the  Chassis  that  he  becomes  able  to  be  a rep 
resentative  of  the  Classis  in  the  Synod  ! At  the  present 
time,  because  of  the  still  American  character  of  their  body, 
they  may  feel  no  serious  inconvenience.  If  our  position  had 
been  like  theirs,  occupying  the  ground  at  Amoy  alone,  pos- 
sibly we  should  have  done  as  they  have.  We  should  have 
understood  well  enough  that  the  connection  of  the  native 
Church  with  the  Church  at  home  could  only  be  nominal. 
But  if  our  Church  desired  this,  so  long  as  it  did  not  injure 
the  native  Church,  we  probably  should  have  made  no  ob- 
jections. 

But  we  are  told  that  it  is  not  desired  that  this  connection 
with  the  Church  in  America  should  be  perpetual.  It  will 
last  only  until  the  Church  at  Amoy  has  sufficient  develop- 
ment to  stand  alone.  Then,  of  course,  our  Church  will  con- 
sent to  the  separation.  (A  very  different  doctrine,  by  the 
way,  from  the  “ assertion  ” of  the  committee  of  Sjmod  that 
the  Church  can  not  “ voluntarily  relinquish  its  powers.”) 
After  that,  the  churches  at  Amoy  which  have  been  under  our 
care,  and  those  which  have  been  under  the  care  of  the  English 
Presbyterians,  may  again  unite  in  one  Denomination,  if  the}7' 
see  fit.  This  sounds  pretty  well.  But  look  at  it.  First 
separate  the  churches  long  enough  to  engender  rivalries  and 
allow  prejudices  to  grow  up,  and  then  attempt  to  unite  them, 
and  what  will  be  the  result  ? Unless  they  have  a more  lib- 
eral spirit  than  is  usual  in  the  churches  in  this  land,  instead 
of  making  one  denomination  out  of  two,  we  shall  have  three. 


63 


But  who  shall  be  the  judge  when  the  proper  time  has  arrived 
to  liberate  the  Church  in  China,  if  the  opinions  of  those  on 
the  ground,  and  of  the  native  churches,  are  all  to  be  ignored  ? 

3.  It  will  injure  the  efficiency  of  the  Church  at  Amoy. 
Besides  the  objection — which  the  heathen  will  thus,  as  readily 
as  the  irreligious  in  this  country,  be  able  to  urge  against 
Christianity — furnished  by  the  increase  of  Denominations,  it 
will  deprive  the  churches  of  the  benefit  of  the  united  wisdom 
and  strength  of  the  whole  of  them  for  self-cultivation  and  for 
Christian  enterprise,  and  will  introduce  a spirit  of  jealous 
rivalry  among  them.  We  know  it  is  said  that  there 
need  be  no  such  result,  and  that  the  native  churches  may 
remain  just  as  united  in  spirit  after  the  organization  of  two 
Denominations  as  before.  Such  a sentiment  takes  for  granted, 
either  that  ecclesiastical  organization  has  in  fact  no  efficiency 
(such  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  Church),  or  that  the  Chinese 
churches  have  arrived  at  a far  higher  state  of  sanctification 
than  the  churches  have  attained  to  in  this  land.  Do  not 
different  Denominations  exhibit  jealous  rivalry  in  this  land? 
Why,  your  Missionaries  are  already  frequently  charged  with 
being  too  liberal  towards  their  English  Presbyterian  brethren 
in  giving  to  them  members  and  churches  which,  it  is  said, 
properly  belong  to  us.  Is  Chinese  human  nature  different 
from  American  ? 

In  consequence  of  such  division,  the  native  Churches  will 
not  be  so  able  to  support  the  Gospel  among  themselves. 
Look  at  the  condition  of  our  western  towns  in  this  respect. 
Why  strive  to  entail  like  evils  on  our  Missionary  churches? 
Their  strength  will  be  weakened  for  evangelistic  effort.  Their 
Missionary  efforts  is  one  of  the  most  striking  and  praiseworthy 
characteristics  of  the  Amoy  churches.  IIow  will  they  be 
shorn  of  their  strength  by  division  and  necessary  rivalry  ! 


64 


Besides  this,  if  the  connection  with  the  Church  at  home  be 
anything  more  than  nominal,  our  churches  should,  in  part 
at  least,  work  through  the  Church  at  home.  No'?  Then 
why  form  the  connection  ? 

4.  Instead  of  the  Dutch  Church  being  the  Presbyterian 
Church  at  Amoy,  it  will  only  be  a small  Church,  bearing 
about  the  same  proportion  to  the  other  Christian  Churches 
there,  that  it  does  to  the  other  Churches  in  this  land.  Why 
is  not  the  Dutch  Church  the  principal  Presbyterian  body  in 
this  land  ? Unless  we  are  mistaken  in  regard  to  its  excellency 
of  order,  it  has  all  the  adaptedness,  and  it  was  here  first.  Do 
you  wish  a similar  result  in  China  ? 


That  it  may  be  seen  whether  the  Missionaries  of  Amoy 
have  asked  of  our  Church  to  “ surrender  the  Constitution, 
the  policy,  the  interests  of  our  Church,  ” “ nay,  even  their 
own  welfare,  and  that  of  the  Mission  they  are  so  tenderly 
attached  to  ” — whether  what  they  ask  for  “ is  flatly  in  the 
face  of  our  Constitution  and  order” — whether  the  “Synod 
has  no  right  to  form,  or  to  authorize  any  such  self-regulating, 
ecclesiastical  body,  or  to  consent  that  any  Ministers  of  our 
Church  should  hold  seats  in  such  a body  ” — whether,  “ if  we 
do  it,  we  transcend  the  most  liberal  construction  which  has 
ever  been  known  to  be  given  to  the  powers  of  the  General 
Synod”— whether,  by  granting  the  request  of  the  Mission- 
aries, “ we  violate  our  own  order,  our  fundamental  principles, 
the  polity  to  which  we  are  bound  by  our  profession,  by  our 
subscription,  by  every  tie  which  can  bind  religious  and 
honorable  men  ” — I will  append  the  resolution  which  was 
offered  by  me  in  the  General  Synod  as  a substitute  for  those 
offered  by  the  Committee.  If  it  called  for  declamation  like 
the  above,  well.  These  are  the  words  : 


Resolved,  That  the  Synod  learn,  with  gratitude  to  God, 
of  the  great  progress  of  the  work  of  the  Lord  at  Amoy,  and 
in  the  region  around,  so  that  already  we  hear  of  six  organ- 
ized churches  with  their  Consistories,  and  others  growing  up, 
not  yet  organized  ; two  native  Pastors,  who  were  to  have 
been  ordained  on  the  29th  of  March  last,  and  the  whole  under 
the  care  of  a Classis  composed  of  the  Missionaries  of  our 
Church  and  the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  and  representa- 
tive Elders  of  the  several  churches.  It  calls  for  our  hearty 
gratitude  to  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  that  the  Mis- 
sionaries of  different  Churches,  and  different  countries,  have 
been  enabled,  through  Divine  grace,  to  work  together  in 
such  harmony.  It  is  also  gratifying  to  us  that  these  Churches 
and  this  Classis  have  been  organized  according  to  the  polity 
of  our  Church.  Inasmuch  as  the  Synod  of  the  English 
Presbyterian  Church  has  approved  of  the  course  of  their 
Missionaries  in  uniting  with  ours  in  the  organization  of  the 
Church  at  Amoy,  after  our  order,  therefore,  this  Synod  would 
direct  its  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  to  allow  their  Mission- 
aries to  continue  their  present  relations  with  the  Missionaries 
of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  and  the  churches  under 
their  several  care,  so  long  as  the  present  harmony  shall  con- 
tinue, and  no  departure  shall  be  made  from  tbe  doctrines  and 
essential  polity  of  our  Church,  or  until  this  Synod  shall 
otherwise  direct. 

Some,  after  reading  the  foregoing  discussion,  will  be  ready 
to  say  to  us  : “ Your  views  are  in  the  main  correct.  It  would 
have  been  better  if  Synod  had  decided  otherwise,  but 
the  decision  has  been  made,  and  we  must  put  up  with  it.” 
We  answer,  Not  so.  We  must  obey  Synod,  but  may  not 
the  Church  change  or  improve  her  decisions  ? Here  is  one  of 
the  good  things  we  hope  to  see  come  out  of  this  mistake  of 
the  Church.  Jesus  rules,  and  he  is  ordering  all  things  for  the 
welfare  of  his  Church  and  the  advancement  of  his  cause. 
Sometimes,  the  better  to  accomplish  this  end,  he  permits  the 
Church  to  make  mistakes.  When  we  failed  in  former  days  to  £et 
our  views  made  public,  it  gave  us  no  anxiety,  for  we  believed 
5 


66 


the  doctrine  that  Jesus  reigns.  So  we  now  feel,  notwithstand- 
ing this  mistake.  The  Master  wTill  overrule  it  for  good.  We 
do  not  certainly  know  how,  but  we  can  imagine  one  way. 
By  means  of  this  mistake  the  matter  may  be  brought  before 
our  Church,  and  before  other  Churches,  more  clearly  than  it 
wrnuld  otherwise  have  been  for  many  years  to  come,  and  in 
consequence  of  this  we  expect,  in  due  time,  that  our  Church, 
instead  of  coming  up  merely  to  the  standard  of  liberality  for 
which  we  have  been  contending',  wull  rise  far  above  anything 
we  have  asked  for  or  even  imagined,  and  other  Churches  will 
also  raise  their  standard  higher.  Hereafter  we  expect  to 
contend  for  still  higher  principles.  This  is  the  doctrine  : 
Let  all  the  branches  of  the  great  Presbyterian  family  in  the 
same  region  in  any  heathen  country,  which  are  sound  in  the 
faith,  organize  themselves,  if  convenient , into  one  organic 
whole,  allowing  liberty  to  the  different  parts  in  things  non- 
essential.  Let  those  who  adopt  Dutch  customs,  as  at  Amoy, 
continue,  if  they  see  fit,  their  peculiarities,  and  those  who 
adopt  other  Presbyterian  customs,  as  at  Ningpo  and  other 
places,  continue  their  peculiarities,  and  yet  all  unite  as  one 
Church.  This  subject  does  not  simply  relate  to  the  interests 
of  the  Church  at  Amoy.  It  relates  to  the  interests  of  all  the 
Missionary  work  of  all  the  Churches  of  the  Presbyterian  order 
in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Oh  that  our  Church  might  take  the 
lead  in  this  catholicity  of  spirit — instead  of  falling  back  in  the 
opposite  direction — that  no  one  may  take  her  crown  ! But 
if  she  do  not,  then  we  trust  that  some  other  of  the  sacramen- 
tal hosts  will  take  the  lead  and  receive  too  the  honor,  for  it  is 
for  the  glory  of  the  great  Captain  of  our  salvation,  and  for 
the  interests  of  His  kingdom.  We  need  the  united  strength 
of  all  these  branches  of  Zion  for  the  great  work,  which  the 
Master  has  set  before  us,  in  calling  on  us  to  evangelize  the 
world.  In  expecting  to  obtain  this  union,  will  it  be  said, 


67 


that  we  are  looking  for  a chimera  ? It  ought  to  be  so,  ought 
it  not  ? Then  it  is  no  chimera.  It  may  take  time  for  the 
churches  to  come  up  to  this  standard,  but  within  a few 
years  past  we  have  seen  tendencies  to  union  among  different 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  family  in  Australia,  in  Canada, 
in  our  own  country,  and  in  England  and  Scotland.  In  many 
places  these  tendencies  are  stronger  now  than  they  have  ever 
before  been  since  the  days  of  the  Reformation.  True,  human 
nature  is  still  compassed  with  infirmities  even  in  the  Church 
of  Christ.  But  the  day  of  the  world’s  regeneration  is  ap- 
proaching, and  as  it  approaches  nearer  to  us,  doubtless  the 
different  branches  of  the  Presbyterian  family  will  approach 
still  nearer  to  each  other.  God  hasten  the  time,  and  keep  us 
also  from  doing  anything  to  retard,  but  everything  to  help  it 
forward,  and  to  his  name  be  the  praise  forever.  Amen. 


6S 


Appendix  A. 

Further  to  illustrate  the  unity  of  the  Churches  under  the  care  of  the  two 
Missions,  I will  transcribe  from  the  Reports  of  the  Amoy  Mission,  for  the  years 
1861  and  1862. 

From  the  Report  for  1861.  Dated  Feb.  24,  1862. 

Our  work  is  so  interwoven  with  that  of  the  Missionaries  of  the  English 
Presbyterian  Church,  that  we  cannot  give  a full  report  of  the  state  of  our 
Churches  and  out-stations  without  including  in  it  a partial  report  of  some 
of  their  stations.  We  have,  therefore,  thought  it  best,  both  on  this  account, 
and  because  the  Churches  gathered  by  us  and  by  them  are  really  one,  to  give 
statistics  of  both  Missions  with  brief  remarks.  These,  besides  simplifying  the 
matter,  will  enable  the  Church  at  home  to  become  better  acquainted  with  the 
real  progress  of  the  cause  of  Christ  in  this  region. 

Missionaries  and  Assistant  Mhsionaries  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church  at  Amoy,  at 
the  dose  of  the  year  1861.  [Here  follow  their  names,  and  remarks  concerning 
them.] 

Missionaries  and  Assistant  Missionaries  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church  at  the  close 
of  the  year  1861.  [Here  follow  their  names,  and  remarks  concerning  them.] 


Tabular  View  of  the  Churches  and  Mission  Stations  under  the  care  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church , and  English  Presbyterian  Church,  in  Amoy  and  vicinity. 


Churches  and  Mission  Sta- 
tions. 


z 


First  Church  at  Amoy .... 

Second  “ “ 

Church  at  Chioh-be 


3 

2 

o 


“ Peh-chui-ia 3 

“ Ma-peng 2 

Station  at  An-hai 3 

“ Khang-khau. . . . 1 


Kang-thau 1 

E-mng-kang ....  1 


fc- 

03 

Vj 

a 

o 

a 

d 

03 

3 

O 

3 

P o6 

5 rH^ 

S r-* 

'3  i 

6 1-5 

25 

© 

tSj 

a 

a 

-a 

-a 

o 

-a 

03 

3 

Excommunicated. 

No.  of  Members,  Dec. 
31,1861. 

Under  suspension , Dec. , 
1861. 

Infants  baptized  during 
the  year. 

Colporteurs  sustained 
by  Native  Church. 

Benevolent  contribu- 
tions. 

4 

4 

102 

24 

2 

2 

122 

4 

13 

1 1 

4 

4 

78 

13 

1 

\ 

89 

1 

11 

1 1 

I oo 

4 

4 

47 

5 

1 

.. 

51 

3 

5 

i 

200  29 

2 

25 

3 

1 

27 

1 

3 

ft 

3 

33 

6 

1 

i 

3 

3 

7 

23 

1 

29 

4 

The  Church  members  at  this  Station  are  reck- 
oned to  the  Church  at  Ma-peng. 

The  Church  members  at  this  Station  are  reck- 
oned to  the  First  Church  at  Amoy. 

The  Church  members  at  this  Station  are  reck- 
oned to  the  First  Church  at  Amoy. 


Chiang-cliiu  ....  2 


[Then  come  remarks  about  native  helpers,  not  included  in  the  above  ; Schools 
sustained  by  each  of  the  Missions,  and  by  the  native  Churches  ; Theological  Class ; 
Students  sustained  by  each  Mission.] 

Remarks  on  the  above  Ttibular  View. 

The  two  Churches  at  Amoy,  and  the  one  at  Chioh-be  are  under  the  care  of 
the  Missionaries  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church.  ° ° ° ° o ° 

The  Churches  at  Peh-chui-ia  and  Ma-peng,  are  under  the  care  of  the  M is- 
sionaries  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  o o o o e e 


G9 


The  Congregation  at  An-ltai  is  under  the  care  of  the  English  Presbyt  erian 
Missionaries.  It  has  not  yet  been  organized  into  a Church.  It  is  so  far  re- 
moved from  Amoy  that  it  cannot  conveniently  be  placed  under  the  supervision 
of  either  of  the  Consistories.  ® ® ° ® c'  ® 

Khang-khau  is  a station  under  the  care  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Mis- 
sion. ® ® ® ® ® 

Eang-thau  is  under  the  care  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Mission. 

E-mng-kang  is  a suburb  of  Amoy.  The  Congregation  worshiping  there 
belongs,  mostly,  to  the  First  Church  at  Amoy.  The  Station  is  under  the  care 
of  the  English  Presbyterian  Mission.  ® <s  ° ® ® c' 

Chiang-cliiu  is  a large  city,  some  twelve  miles  or  more  beyond  Chioli-be,and 
about  thirty-five  miles  from  Amoy.  In  times  past,  several  efforts  have  been 
made  to  establish  a Station  at  Chiang-cliiu,  but  always  without  success,  until 
during  the  past  year.  At  the  close  of  the  year  there  had  not  yet  been  any  bap- 
tisms at  that  Station.  Since  the  beginning  of  this  year,  there  have  been  several. 
The  Church  members  are  reckoned  to  the  Church  at  Chioh-be,  and  are  under 
the  oversight  of  the  Chioh-be  Consistory.  Both  Missions  work  as  one  at  Chiang- 
cliiu.  Each  Mission  is  to  furnish  half  the  expense.  To  simplify  the  work,  it 
was  thought  best  that  one  Mission  be  responsible  for  the  control  of  the  Station, 
and  direct  the  work.  At  present  this  is  the  Mission  of  the  Reformed  Dutch 
Church.  If  the  work  be  prospered,  it  is  proposed  to  form  two  Stations,  one 
under  the  care  of  each  Mission. 

[The  remaining  part  of  the  Report,  having  no  bearing  on  the  subject  before 
us,  need  not  be  quoted.] 

From  the  Report  for  1862. 

[It  will  be  sufficient  merely  to  transcribe  the  Tabular  View,  and  add  one  or 
two  explanatory  remarks.] 

Churches  and  Mission  Stations  under  the  care  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  and  English  Presby- 
terian Missions  at  Amoy,  December  31,  1862. 


First  Church  at  Amoy  . . . 
Second  “ “ .... 

Church  at  Chioh-be 

“ “ Peh-chui-ia 

“ “ Ma-peng 

Station  at  An-hai 

“ “ Kang-thau 

“ “ Khang-khau.... 

“ “ E-mng-kang.... 

“ “ Chiang-cliiu 

“ “ Go-chhng 

“ “ Te-soa 

“ “ Khi-be 


Elders. 

o 

o 

b 

No.  of  members, 

1 Dec.  31,1861. 

Died  during  the 
year. 

Excommunicated 
during  the  year. 

No.  of  members. 
Dec.  31,1862. 

Under  suspension, 
Dec.  31, 1862. 

Infant  baptisms 
during  the  year. 

Helpers  supported 
by  native  Church. 

4 

4 

122 

6 

2 

139 

4 

17 

i 

4 

4 

89 

100 

3 

2 

i 

4 

4 

51 

1 

70 

2 

9 

i 

2 

2 

27 

30 

I 

3 

37 

2 

38 

29 

2 

30 

The  members  at  this  Station  are  reckoned  to  the 
First  Church,  Amoy. 

The  members  at  this  Station  are  reckoned  to  the 
Church  at  Ma-peng. 

The  members  at  this  Station  are  reckoned  to  the 
First  Church,  Amoy. 

The  members  at  this  Station  are  reckoned  to  the 
Church  at  Chioh-be. 


70 


[Of  the  three  new  Stations,  Go-chhng  and  Te-soa,  are  under  the  care  of  the 
Reformed  Dutch  Mission,  Khi-be  under  the  care  of  the  English  Presbyterian 
Mission.  The  other  Churches  and  Stations  as  in  previous  Report.] 

The  Board  of  Foreign  Missions,  being  simply  the  organ  of  Synod,  felt  bound 
in  their  Report  to  eliminate,  as  far  as  possible,  all  the  Presbyterian  elements 
from  the  above  Reports  of  the  Mission.  By  so  doing,  we  think  that  they,  unde- 
signedly  of  course,  keep  our  Church  in  ignorance,  not  only  of  the  absolute  unity 
of  the  Churches  in  the  region  of  Amoy,  but  also  of  the  real  progress  of  the 
cause  of  Christ  and  of  the  Church  of  our  order  there.  Among  the  members  set 
down  to  our  churches  are  those  who  belong  to  stations  under  the  care  of  the 
English  Presbyterian  Mission,  as  is  shown  by  the  Tabular  Views.  The  Church 
at  home,  not  aware  of  this  fact,  gives  to  their  Mission  credit  which  does  not  be- 
long to  them  ; and  then,  when,  in  the  progress  of  the  work,  new  churches  are 
organized  at  these  stations,  and  these  members  are  set  off  to  them,  because  they 
belong  there,  the  Dutch  Mission  is  charged  with  deficiency  of  denominational 
feeling,  in  giving  to  the  English  Presbyterians  that  which,  “ by  all  rules  of 
Christian  courtesy  and  harmonious  Missionary  action,”  belongs  to  the  Dutch 
Church.  Is  it  well  that  we  should  be  disputing  among  ourselves  concerning 
who  shall  have  that  credit  which  all  belongs  to  Christ  ? I know  it  has  been 
asked,  with  disapprobation,  by  very  high  authority  (not,  indeed,  by  the  Board) 
concerning  the  unity  of  the  Churches  at  Amoy — “ how  it  came  to  exist  at  all.”  In 
answer  to  such  questions,  let  us  consider  one  case,  that  of  the  Station,  now 
Church,  at  E-mng-kang.  It  is  near  enough  to  the  First  Church,  at  Amoy,  to  be 
under  its  supervision.  Doubtless,  we  might  have  said  to  our  Presbyterian 
brethren,  In  gathering  a church,  we  are  willing  to  labor  with  you  in  preaching 
the  Gospel,  for  no  one  will  censure  us  for  that,  and  we  admit  that,  by  all  prin- 
ciples of  our  Church  order,  it  would  be  altogether  proper  that  the  converts 
gathered  in  at  E-mng-kang  should  be  received  and  watched  over  by  the  First 
Church,  at  Amoy  ; b ut,  by  allowing  this,  there  will  be  danger  of  unity  between 
the  Christians  at  E-mng-kang  and  Amoy  (“that  they  all  may  be  one”),  which 
will  be  a violation  of  the  important  and  radical  distinction  existing  between 
them,  because  “some  are  supported  by  our  funds,  some  by  the  funds  of  the 
English  Presbyterians  and  then,  when  it  becomes  necessary  to  divide  these 
Churches,  for  where  there  is  such  a radical  distinction,  “a  division  will  neces- 
sarily come  at  some  period,  and  the  longer  it  is  delayed,  the  more  trying  and 
sorrowful  it  will  be,”  it  will  be  found  that  the  Church  at  Amoy  can  never 
“relinquish  its  powers  and  abnegate  its  authority  ” over  the  Church  at  E-mng- 
kang — therefore,  rather  than  incur  such  risks  of  unity,  we  had  better  violate 
our  principles  of  Church  order  at  the  commencement,  and  not  allow  the  native 
Elders  any  responsibility  in  receiving  and  watching  over  the  Church  members. 
We  might  have  acted  on  such  principles,  but  shall  we  be  censured  for  not 
doing  it  ? 


71 


Let  it  be  distinctly  understood,  that  I do  not  publish  the  above  Reports  with 
such  remarks  with  any  design  of  throwing  blame  on  the  Board  of  Foreign 
Missions.  The  members  of  it,  and  the  Missionaries,  have  had  no  feelings 
towards  each  other  but  such  as  are  altogether  pleasant.  Perhaps  the  Board,  in 
view  of  all  the  circumstances,  has  simply  performed  its  duty.  I add  this  Ap- 
pendix only  to  illustrate  the  unity  of  the  churches  at  Amoy,  and  show  that  the 
Missionaries  have  acted  according  to  the  doctrines  of  God’s  Word  and  the  fun- 
damental principles  of  our  Church  order. 


72 


Appendix  B. 

In  the  Christian  Intelligencer  of  June  18,  1863,  in  the  Keport  of  the  Proceed- 
ings of  General  Synod  of  Thursday,  June  11,  the  last  day  of  the  session, 
appeared  the  following  paragraphs  : 

“ AMOY  MISSION. 

“ Rev.  Dr.  Porter  arose  and  said  that  he  was  about  to  utter  what  to  himself 
was  the  gladdest  and  happiest  word  he  had  been  permitted  to  speak  during  the 
Synod:cal  sessions,  delightful  as  they  all  had  been.  He  was  informed  by  his 
beloved  brother  Talmage,  that  by  permission  of  Synod,  he  would  like  to  express 
briefly  his  content,  in  the  main,  with  the  action  which  the  Synod  had  taken 
respecting  the  Amoy  Mission.  It  is  of  the  Lord.  He  has  melted  all  hearts 
together  as  one,  for  his  own  work  and  honor.  We  see  eye  to  eye,  and  Zion  may 
lift  up  her  voice  in  thanksgiving. 

“Rev.  J.  V.  N.  Talmage  said  he  wished  to  express  his  gratitude  to  the 
fathers  and  brethren  for  all  their  kindness  to  himself  and  the  Missionaries  at 
Amoy.  If  the  Synod  has  not  arrived  at  the  very  best  decision,  he  hoped  it  is 
the  best  under  the  circumstances.  He  felt  no  desire  to  disobey  the  Synod,  nor 
will  the  Missionaries  at  Amoy.  If  we  cannot  organize  a Classis  at  once,  we  will 
do  the  best  we  can.  He  had  been  defeated,  and  he  had  no  qualms  of  conscience 
in  submitting  to  the  decision  that  had  been  reached.” 

I was  willing  to  allow  the  previous,  and,  as  I considered,  very  partial,  report 
of  the  proceedings  of  Synod  to  pass  unnoticed,  but  felt  that  I had  no  right  to 
allow  errors,  such  as  are  contained  in  the  above  two  paragraphs,  to  remain  un- 
corrected. Therefore  I addressed  to  the  editor  the  following  note  : 

“ To  the  Christian  Intelligencer. 

“ Mr.  Editor  : 

“ In  looking  over  the  report  of  General  Synod,  as  given  in  the  last  number 
of  the  Intelligencer,  I find  a very  grave  mistake  in  reference  to  the  position  taken 
by  me  near  the  close  of  the  session.  A similar  mistake  appears  in  the  report 
made  to  the  New  York  Observer ,® 

“ AVhen,  in  the  order  of  business  on  Thursday  morning,  there  seemed  a 
suitable  opportunity  for  me  to  address  the  Synod,  I was  sitting  near  Dr.  Porter, 
and  remarked  to  him  that  I wished  to  make  such  address.  He  said  that  he 
desired  to  speak  first.  He  arose  and  addressed  the  Synod,  in  substance,  as  is 
reported.  I was  altogether  surprised,  for  I had  given  him  no  authority  to  speak 
for  me  ; neither  had  I expressed  to  him  or  any  other  man  the  sentiments  he 
attributed  to  me.  I felt  that  his  speech  was  altogether  unfortunate,  for  it 
seemed  almost  to  demand  of  me  a restatement  of  my  views.  But  I felt,  also, 
that  it  would  be  improper,  then,  to  occupy  the  time  of  Synod  with  any  further 
discussion,  and  contented  myself  with  merely  taking  exception  to  Dr.  Porter's 
statement,  saying  that  I could  not  use  the  language  he  had  just  used. 

‘ ‘ I also  stated  that  although  the  Synod  had  not  arrived  at  the  best  decision,  yet 
perhaps  it  was  the  best  under  all  the  circumstances.  As  these  circumstances 
seem  to  be  entirely  misunderstood  by  some,  I may  now  explain  them.  I had 
remarked  in  the  previous  debate,  and  still  firmly  believe,  that  the  decision  of 
Synod,  if  it  be  fully  carried  out,  would  only  be  disastrous  in  its  results,  as  far 
as  the  churches  at  Amoy  were  concerned.  But  there  was  another  disaster  to 
be  apprehended.  If  the  Synod  had  allowed  the  work  of  God  to  proceed  at 


[*  I addressed  to  the  editors  of  the  Observer  a card,  correcting  the  mistake  which  had  ap- 
peared in  their  paper,  and  they  published  it.] 


73 


Amoy,  as  it  had  always  been  carried  forward,  and  with  such  marvelous  blessings 
from  on  high,  for  so  many  years  past,  it  was  feared  that  some  of  the  members 
of  Synod  would  use  their  influence  in  the  Church  against  that  Mission,  to  such 
an  extent  as  possibly  to  cut  off  the  resources  of  the  mission.  Such  were  the 
circumstances  to  which  I alluded,  and  I was  well  understood,  at  least  by  some 
of  the  members  of  Synod.  It  seemed  necessary  to  choose  between  two  evils. 
My  own  opinion  was,  and  is,  that  the  Synod  had  chosen  the  greater  evil,  still  I 
was  willing  to  yield  ‘the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  ’ and  therefore  remarked  that  perhaps 
(I  used  the  word  ‘ perhaps  ’)  the  decision  was  the  best  under  the  circumstances. 

“ I did  express  for  myself,  and  as  I believed,  in  accordance  with  the  views  of 
the  Missionaries  at  Amoy,  that  we  did  not  wish,  and  never  had  wished  to  diso- 
bey the  injunctions  of  Synod  Besides  this,  we  were  under  obligations  to  do 
what  was  best  for  the  churches  under  our  care.  If  we  were  not  allowed  to  do 
that  which  is  absolutely  best,  we  should  do  the  best  we  could. 

‘ 1 1 also  expressed  my  gratitude  that  the  Synod  had  manifested  so  much 
patience  and  Christian  courtesy  towards  myself  and  the  Mission,  for  with  one  or 
two  exceptions,  not  an  unkind  word  had  been  uttered. 

“ The  closing  sentence  of  my  remarks  being  somewhat  playful,  might  have 
been  omitted  from  the  report,  but  if  thought  worthy  of  publication,  it  should 
have  been  given  correctly.  I know  that  I can  give  it  now  with  accuracy,  almost 
verbatim.  ‘ I have  fought  hard,  and  have  been  beaten  ; I could  wish  I had 
been  able  to  fight  better,  but  I did  my  best,  and  consequently  have  no  qualms 
of  conscience  on  the  subject.’  Does  that  mean  that  we  had  no  qualms  of  con- 
science about  ‘ submitting  to  the  decision  that  had  been  reached  ?’  No.  It 
means  that  I was  not  responsible  for  the  evils  of  that  decision. 

“It  will,  I think,  serve  the  cause  of  truth,  Mr.  Editor,  if  you  will  be  so  kind 
as  to  publish  this  card  in  your  next  issue.  If  I was  so  unfortunate  in  the  use  of 
language  as  not  to  express  sentiments  similar  to  the  above,  1 desire  now  to 
express  them. 

“ Allow  me  also  to  ask  whether  you  will  open  the  columns  of  your  paper  for 
a full  statement  of  the  views  of  the  Amoy  Mission  on  the  subject  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical relations  of  the  churches  under  their  care  ? I find  that  there  is  still 
altogether  a mistaken  impression  among  our  churches  on  this  subject.  Our 
people  who  sustain  the  Mission  have  a right  to  know  the  condition  of  that 
Mission.  From  the  report  in  the  last  Intelligencer,  they  will  get  no  light  on 
that  subject,  but  will  get  the  impression  that  some  great  mistake  has  been 
committed  by  the  Missionaries  at  Amoy.  Allowing  this  to  be  the  case,  the  Mis- 
sionaries have  a right  to  be  heard  before  the  churches.  Let  the  churches 
understand  the  matter,  and  decide  concerning  the  mistake.  The  Missionaries 
have  been  desirous  for  years  to  get  their  views  made  public,  but  have  not  yet 
succeeded. 


“ June  19,  1863. 


“Very  truly,  yours,  &c., 

“ J.  V.  N.  TALMAGE. 


Instead  of  finding  my  note  inserted  in  the  next  number  of  the  Intelligencer 
I found  the  following  : 


“REV.  MR.  TALMAGE’s  LETTER. 

“ We  have  received  from  the  Bev.  J.  V.  N.  Talmage,  a communication 
respecting  our  report  of  his  remarks  at  the  close  of  the  session  of  the  General 
Synod,  accompanied  with  a request  that  he  be  permitted  to  appeal  through 
these  columns  to  the  Churches  in  support  of  his  position.  The  communication 
is  long,  and  perhaps  we  can  give  the  substance  of  it  briefly. 

“1st.  He  wishes  to  correct  the  statement  of  Rev.  Dr.  Porter.  And  this  he 
shall  do  in  his  own  words,  viz  : 

6 


74 


“‘I  felt  that  his  speech  was  altogether  unfortunate,  for  it  seemed  almost  to 
demand  of  me  the  restatement  of  my  views.  But  I felt,  also,  that  it  would  be 
improper  then  to  occupy  the  time  of  Synod  with  any  further  discussion,  and 
contented  myself  with  merely  taking  exception  to  Dr.  Porter’s  statements,  say- 
ing that  I could  not  use  the  language  he  had  just  used.  I also  stated  that, 
although  the  Synod  had  not  arrived  at  the  best  decision,  yet  perhaps  it  was  the 
best,  under  all  the  circumstances.’ 

“ So  far  Mr.  Talmage,  in  disclaiming  agreement  with  the  statement  made  by 
Dr.  Porter. 

“We  can,  on  this  point,  only  express  regret  that  there  should  have  been 
either  seeming  or  real  difference.  But  as  Brother  Talmage  confesses  that  our 
report  correctly  represents  him  as  having  said,  that 

“ 1 Although  the  Synod  had  not  arrived  at  the  best  decision,  yet  perhaps  it 
was  the  best,  under  all  the  circumstances,’ 

“ We  therefore  suppose  that  the  report  of  verbal  differences — if  the  spirit  of 
the  remarks  be  anything — between  him  and  the  gentleman  to  whom  he  refers, 
cannot  be  accounted  as  very  serious. 

“ 2d.  As  it  respects  the  opening  of  these  columns  to  a fresh  discussion  of  the 
matter  relating  to  the  Amoy  Churches  before  Synod,  we  have  simply  to  say  that 
we  dare  not  give  consent,  for  the  following  reasons  : The  Synod  is  the  legisla- 
tive body  for  the  Church.  The  documents  and  statements  respecting  the  Amoy 
Churches  were  full  and  thorough  in  the  information  imparted.  Four  sessions 
and  more  of  the  Synod  were  occupied  with  a careful  preparatory  hearing  and 
final  adjudication  of  the  matter,  and  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  Christian  Intelli- 
gencer to  allow  itself  to  be  used  as  the  agent  of  dissension  among  the  Churches, 
and  of  opposition  to  the  constituted  authority  of  the  Synod.” 

Whether  my  views  were  misrepresented , and  whether  I was  charged  with 
seeking  a different  object  from  that  for  which  I had  asked — I had  not  asked 
that  the  columns  of  the  paper  he  opened  for  a fresh  “ discussion  of  the  matter” 
which  had  been  “ before  Synod,”  but  “for  a full  statement  of  the  views  of  the 
Amoy  Mission,”  because  of  11  mistaken  impressions”  in  “ our  Churches” — theChurch 
will  be  able  to  decide  as  accurately  as  myself.  But  I wish  to  say  this  much. 
Your  Missionaries  do  not  consider  that  by  becoming  Missionaries  they  lose  theii 
rights  as  men,  and  Ministers  of  the  Dutch  Church.  They  have  the  right  to  expect 
that,  when  away  from  home,  their  reputation  will  be  protected.  When  mis- 
taken statements  concerning  their  views  get  abroad  in  the  Church,  there  should 
be,  and  we  believe  there  is,  a responsible  party  whose  duty  it  is  to  correct  such 
statements.  At  any  rate,  a paper  which  professes  to  be  the  organ  of  the  Dutch 
Church,  has  no  right  to  refuse  to  the  Missionaries  themselves  the  privilege  of 
correcting  mistaken  statements  of  their  own  views  and  their  oum  language,  that 
appear  in  its  columns.  The  Editor  doubtless  is  responsible  for  what  appears  in 
his  paper.  He  may  refuse  to  publish  improper  articles,  but  he  may  not  garble 
and  misrepresent  them  without  incurring  reproof.  The  expense  of  publishing 
in  pamphlet  form  corrections  of  mistakes  which  appear  in  the  columns  of  a 
newspaper,  is  too  heavy  a tax  to  impose  on  any  of  the  Ministry  of  the  Church, 
especially  on  your  Missionaries  ; and,  even  then,  the  corrections  can  be  read  by 
only  a small  portion  of  those  who  read  the  misstatements. 


Li L-c-  -c  * 


z.  AC  ^ — 

j ■ ■ *•  >•  ' </t-sSy* 

. // 


